Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-05-03 12:10:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right. The whole thing is just a kluge, which I'm convinced we'll
>> regret sooner or later --- probably sooner.
> I tentatively agree as well. The only argument for introducing some
> additional location for such information is that it would be the start
> of an infrastructure for information we would need for incrementally
> adding checksums, page upgrades and such.
It's possible that a metadata fork would be a good design for such
stuff, but I'd want to see a pretty completely worked-out design before
committing to the idea. In any case we're way too late in the 9.3 cycle
to be considering something like that right now.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
