On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Would you mind reworking the patch so that you aren't removing the
> existing code, only IFDEFing it out of the way. I'd like to make it as easy
> as possible to skip your implementation for both us and the use of the code,
> and/or add another implementation also.
I'm not sure that would make much sense. The checksum function will be
a part of the page format. If we wish for configurable checksum
functions then I'd like to hear some discussion on how that would
work. As it is, it seems to cause more headaches than it is worth.
> Could you also re-summarise everything you've said so far on this? I want to
> make sure this has everyone's attention, knowledge and consent before we
> consider applying. We would also need most of that in a README to ensure we
> don't forget.
Sure, give me a day or so. I'm not certain how much of the discovery
process is worth of README status. I think I will mostly go with why
the result is at is, skipping the journey. Any further questions would
certainly help as I think I gave a reasonably thorough explanation in
the patch.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
