On 09/11/12 02:01, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As I understand it, the main part of the remaining work to be done for
> the checksums patch (at least the first commit) is to have a better way
> to enable/disable them.
>
> For the sake of simplicity (implementation as well as usability), it
> seems like there is agreement that checksums should be enabled or
> disabled for the entire instance, not per-table.
I can definately see that simplicity is an argument here, but
I can easily imagine that some performance hungry users
would prefer to be able to disable the functionality on a
per table level. UNCHECKSUMMED TABLES (similar to UNLOGGED TABLES).
I would definately stuff our system in state = 2 in your
description if it was available.
--
Jesper
