On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: > As described before in this thread, I think we might be able to do > without the "has checksum"-bit, as yet another simplification. But I > don't object to adding it, either.
I see. For a first patch, I guess that's OK. Might as well make it as simple as possible. We probably need to decide what to do there before 9.3 is released though. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers