| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled. |
| Date: | 2014-02-20 02:15:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTYzF5B8suFFvGXJiTtLYKhgx6eoz62NQd=M9+sTGG4Sw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +1 for back-patching.
> Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
> as it is a new feature :)
I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
requires correction. Many of our users couldn't run pg_controldata
even if they'd heard of it...
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-02-20 06:25:01 | Re: pgsql: Further code review for pg_lsn data type. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-20 02:08:55 | pgsql: Remove inappropriate EXPORTS line. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-02-20 03:26:09 | Re: Priority table or Cache table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-20 02:09:09 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |