On 27.08.24 17:26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:16:51PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 27.08.24 15:44, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com
<mailto:nathandboss...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Should we error if both --data-checksum and --no-data-checksums are
specified? IIUC with 0001, we'll use whichever is specified last.
Hmmm, that is a good question. We have never (to my recollection)
flipped a default quite like this before. I'm inclined to leave it as
"last one wins", as I can see automated systems appending their desired
selection to the end of the arg list, and expecting it to work.
Yes, last option wins is the normal expected behavior.
WFM
001_verify_heapam fails with this patch set. I think you may need to use
--no-data-checksums in that test, too. Otherwise, it looks pretty good to
me.
I have committed 0001 (the new option) and 0004 (the docs tweak). I
think there is consensus for the rest, too, but I'll leave it for a few
more days to think about. I guess the test failure has to be addressed.
