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 "version". When we do have multiple options, it seems like we'd just have one field output: 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? Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers