On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Right, I misunderstood your initial email but I see what you mean. Yes, you
> are right and with that +1 on your patch.
OK, no problem.
> Naming it pg_checksums, with only verification as an option, seems to me to
> imply future direction for 12 more than what pg_verify_checksums does. I would
> leave it the way it is, but I don’t have very strong opinions (or any plans on
> hacking on offline checksum enabling for that matter).
Okay, I am fine to let such decision to you and Magnus at the end as the
authors and committers of the thing. I think that I will just hack out
this tool myself after reusing this code if you don't mind of course..
--
Michael
