| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 15:26:59 |
| Message-ID: | Zs3wQ-ME07j6IZXG@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:16:51PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
WFM
001_verify_heapam fails with this patch set. I think you may need to use
--no-data-checksums in that test, too. Otherwise, it looks pretty good to
me.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-08-27 15:45:00 | Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-08-27 15:26:15 | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions |