On 11/11/2012 05:52 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 21:20 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I don't think so GUC are good for this purpouse, but I don't like
>> single purpouse statements too.
>>
>> what do you think about enhancing ALTER DATABASE statement
>>
>> some like
>>
>> ALTER DATABASE name ENABLE CHECKSUMS and ALTER DATABASE name DISABLE CHECKSUMS
> Per-database does sound easier than per-table. I'd have to think about
> how that would affect shared catalogs though.
>
> For now, I'm leaning toward an offline utility to turn checksums on or
> off, called pg_checksums. It could do so lazily (just flip a switch to
> "enabling" in pg_control), or it could do so eagerly and turn it into a
> fully-protected instance.
>
> For the first patch, it might just be an initdb-time option for
> simplicity.
>
+1
I haven't followed this too closely, but I did wonder several days ago
why this wasn't being made an initdb-time decision.
cheers
andrew