Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)
Date: 2013-07-21 06:02:43
Message-ID: 1374386563.2902.9.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 13:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
> > My feeling about this code is that the reason we print the infomask in
> > hex is so you can see exactly which bits are set if you care, and that
> > the rest of the line ought to be designed to interpret the bits in as
> > reader-friendly a way as possible. So I don't buy the notion that we
> > should just print out a name for each bit that's set. I'd rather
> > replace individual bit names with items like LOCKED_FOR_KEY_SHARE,
> > LOCKED_FOR_SHARE, etc in cases where you have to combine multiple
> > bits to understand the meaning.
>
> Okay, that's what I've been saying all along so I cannot but agree. I
> haven't reviewed Jeff's patch lately; Jeff, does Tom's suggestion need
> some more new code, and if so are you open to doing this work, or shall
> I?

At first glance it seems like a pretty trivial change. I'm going on
vacation tomorrow and unfortunately I haven't had a chance to look at
this. Pgfoundry CVS is down, so I can't see whether it's already been
committed or not.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-07-21 06:04:06 [9.4 CF 1] And then there were 5
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-07-21 06:01:19 Re: Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls