| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-11-14 18:25:37 |
| Message-ID: | 50A3E221.60708@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/11/12 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I haven't followed this too closely, but I did wonder several days ago
> why this wasn't being made an initdb-time decision.
One problem I see with this is that it would make regression testing
much more cumbersome. Basically, to do a proper job, you'd have to run
all the tests twice, once against each initdb setting. Either we
automate this, which would mean everyone's tests are now running almost
twice as long, or we don't, which would mean that some critical piece of
low-level code would likely not get wide testing.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-14 19:01:35 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-11-14 17:54:54 | Re: WIP checksums patch |