Re: Enabling Checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Enabling Checksums
Date
Msg-id 1366858772.2646.331.camel@sussancws0025
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Enabling Checksums  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 21:09 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 April 2013 21:06, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> 
> > What goal are you trying to accomplish with this patch?
> 
> That we might need to patch the checksum version on a production release.

Oh, I see.

I don't think we need two output fields from pg_controldata though. It's
a little redundant, and confused me when I was looking at the impact on
pg_upgrade. And it means nothing to the user until we actually have
multiple algorithms available, at which time we are better off with a
text representation.

Other than that, I think your patch is fine to accomplish the
aforementioned goal. Essentially, it just changes the bool to a uint32,
which I favor.

Regards,Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KONDO Mitsumasa
Date:
Subject: Re: Failing start-up archive recovery at Standby mode in PG9.2.4
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: danger of stats_temp_directory = /dev/shm