| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Date: | 2024-08-27 15:16:51 |
| Message-ID: | 37c96baa-d715-4d5c-99e8-c2f5727f2586@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27.08.24 15:44, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Should we error if both --data-checksum and --no-data-checksums are
> specified? IIUC with 0001, we'll use whichever is specified last.
>
>
> Hmmm, that is a good question. We have never (to my recollection)
> flipped a default quite like this before. I'm inclined to leave it as
> "last one wins", as I can see automated systems appending their desired
> selection to the end of the arg list, and expecting it to work.
Yes, last option wins is the normal expected behavior.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-08-27 15:19:48 | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-08-27 15:15:46 | Re: Showing primitive index scan count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (for skip scan and SAOP scans) |