| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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 13:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmmLStnvW=v_GT20Amj4WeOW9tOZA09Kf9uiKnQEwrMySHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Nathan Bossart <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.
nitpick: these 4 patches are small enough that they could likely be
> combined and committed together.
>
This was split per request upthread, which I do agree with.
I think it's fair to say we should make the pg_upgrade experience nicer
> once the default changes, but IMHO that needn't block actually changing the
> default.
>
+1
Cheers,
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2024-08-27 13:45:44 | Re: Better error message when --single is not the first arg to postgres executable |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-08-27 13:44:13 | Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM |