| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP checksums patch |
| Date: | 2012-11-09 23:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1352503182.26644.20.camel@sussancws0025 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 10:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Sure, I agree. I don't think it should stay that way forever, but
> removing the burden of dealing with this issue from the initial commit
> would likely allow that commit to happen this release cycle, perhaps
> even in the next CommitFest. And then we'd have half a loaf, which is
> better than none, and we could deal with the issues of switching it on
> and off as a further enhancement.
Just after sending the last email, I realized that it can be separated
into separate commits fairly naturally, I think. So, I agree with you
that we should focus on an initdb setting for the next commitfest and
try for at least an offline migration tool (if not online) later.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-09 23:24:25 | Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-09 23:18:53 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |