Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1366834017.12032.103.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 08:20 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 24 April 2013 01:10, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: > > I'd prefer that it was some kind of a checksum ID code -- e.g. 0 for no > > checksum, 1 for FNV-1a-SR3, etc. That would allow us to release 9.4 with > > a new algorithm without forcing existing users to change. > > That's exactly what the patch does. The word "version" indicates an order to it though, like N+1 is always preferable to N. This is user-facing (through pg_controldata output), otherwise I wouldn't mind. > > initdb would have to take the code as an option, probably in string > > form. > > When/if we have multiple options we can add that. The main thing was > to make sure the control file recorded things in a common way. The main strange thing to me is that we're still using the enabled/disabled for the output of pg_controldata as well as the "version". When we do have multiple options, it seems like we'd just have one field output: Data page checksums: none|crc32c|pg-fnv What goal are you trying to accomplish with this patch? pg_control doesn't need to be compatible between releases, so can't we just add this later when we really do have multiple options? Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: