pgsql: Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Bernd Helmle
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/0892ecbc015930dde2cee9ad464b9b70fdb7667e
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/config.sgml | 13 +++++++++++++
src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c | 4 ++++
src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c | 12 ++++++++++++
3 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
--
�lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
+1.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If
you want to back-patch it, I won't object.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2014-02-18 22:23:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
Thirded.
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If you
want to back-patch it, I won't object.
Imo it's essentially a simple oversight in the checksum patch...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
--On 18. Februar 2014 22:23:59 +0200 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
wrote:
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If
you want to back-patch it, I won't object.
That was my original feeling, too, but +1 for backpatching.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:39:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
+1 for back-patching.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:39:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.+1 for back-patching.
Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
as it is a new feature :)
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for back-patching.
Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
as it is a new feature :)
I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
requires correction. Many of our users couldn't run pg_controldata
even if they'd heard of it...
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 02/20/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:+1 for back-patching.
Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
as it is a new feature :)I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
requires correction. Many of our users couldn't run pg_controldata
even if they'd heard of it...
We seem to have +Many against -1, so back-patched it now.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers