On 15.09.2013 17:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks sane as well,
except that I am not sure if we really need to
On 2013-09-16 14:43:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.09.2013 17:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks
On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks sane as well,
except that I am not sure if we really need to introduce that faux
variable. If the
Attached is a small patch to add a new GUC to report wether data checksums
for a particular cluster are enabled. The only way to get this info afaik
is to look into pg_control and the version number used, but i'd welcome a
way to access this remotely, too. If there aren't any objections i'll
Hi,
On 2013-09-14 18:33:38 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
Attached is a small patch to add a new GUC to report wether data checksums
for a particular cluster are enabled. The only way to get this info afaik is
to look into pg_control and the version number used, but i'd welcome a way
to access
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks sane as well,
except that I am not sure if we really need to introduce that faux
variable. If the variable cannot be set and we have a SHOW hook, do we
