Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:55:43AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Renaming applications shouldn't be a problem unless they have to be
> moved from one binary package to another. I assume all packagers ship
> all client/server binaries in one package, respectively (and not e.g. a
> dedicated postgresql-11-pg_test_fsync package), this should only be a
> matter of updating package metadata.
>
> In any case, it should be identical to the xlog->wal rename.

I have poked -packagers on the matter and I am seeing no complains, so
let's move forward with this stuff.  From the consensus I am seeing on
the thread, we have been discussing about the following points:
1) Rename pg_verify_checksums to pg_checksums.
2) Have separate switches for each action, aka --verify, --enable and
--disable, or a unified --action switch which can take different
values.
3) Do we want to imply --verify by default if no switch is specified?

About 2), folks who have expressed an opinion are:
- Multiple switches: Robert, Fabien, Magnus
- Single --action switch: Michael B, Michael P

About 3), aka --verify implied if no action is specified:
- In favor: Fabien C, Magnus
- Against: Michael P

If I missed what someone said, please feel free to complete with your
votes here.
--
Michael