| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 20:47:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20180411204729.GB32449@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Right, I misunderstood your initial email but I see what you mean. Yes, you
> are right and with that +1 on your patch.
OK, no problem.
> Naming it pg_checksums, with only verification as an option, seems to me to
> imply future direction for 12 more than what pg_verify_checksums does. I would
> leave it the way it is, but I don’t have very strong opinions (or any plans on
> hacking on offline checksum enabling for that matter).
Okay, I am fine to let such decision to you and Magnus at the end as the
authors and committers of the thing. I think that I will just hack out
this tool myself after reusing this code if you don't mind of course..
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-11 20:54:02 | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-11 20:33:09 | Re: relispartition for index partitions |