On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 08:20 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 April 2013 01:10, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > I'd prefer that it was some kind of a checksum ID code -- e.g. 0 for no
> > checksum, 1 for FNV-1a-SR3, etc. That would allow us to release 9.4 with
> > a new algorithm without forcing existing users to change.
> That's exactly what the patch does.

The word "version" indicates an order to it though, like N+1 is always
preferable to N. This is user-facing (through pg_controldata output),
otherwise I wouldn't mind.

> > initdb would have to take the code as an option, probably in string
> > form.
> When/if we have multiple options we can add that. The main thing was
> to make sure the control file recorded things in a common way.

The main strange thing to me is that we're still using the
enabled/disabled for the output of pg_controldata as well as the

When we do have multiple options, it seems like we'd just have one field

  Data page checksums: none|crc32c|pg-fnv

What goal are you trying to accomplish with this patch? pg_control
doesn't need to be compatible between releases, so can't we just add
this later when we really do have multiple options?

        Jeff Davis

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to