Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
>>>
>>>> I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.
>>>
>>> There are no "hacks". There are some carefully designed changes with
>>> input from multiple people, including yourself, and it copes as
>>> gracefully as it can with backwards compatibility requirements.
>>
>> You have comments from three different people, all experienced
>> hackers, disagreeing with this position;
>
> Who is the third person you speak of? Perhaps they will speak again if
> they wish to be heard.

Tom Lane. It was the very first email posted in response to the very
first version of this patch you ever posted.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company