| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 20:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | 50A3FD49.2020405@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/14/2012 03:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Regarding checksums, I can add an option for the initdb that the
>> buildfarm script runs. We already run different tests for different
>> encodings. Of course, constant expanding like this won't scale, so we
>> need to pick the options we want to exrecise carefully.
> I thought the whole point of the buildfarm was to provide a scalable way
> of exercising different combinations of options that individual
> developers couldn't practically test. We might need a little more
> coordination among buildfarm owners to ensure we get full coverage,
> of course.
>
>
Yes, true. So lets' wait and see how the checksums thing works out and
then we can tackle the buildfarm end. At any rate, I don't think the
buildfarm is a reason not to have this as an initdb setting.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2012-11-14 20:31:53 | Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-14 20:15:38 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |