Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Bernd Helmle
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/0892ecbc015930dde2cee9ad464b9b70fdb7667e
Modified Files
--
doc/src/sgml/config.sgml | 13 +
src/backend/access
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Backported from master. It was an oversight in the original data checksums
patch to not have a GUC like this.
Branch
--
REL9_3_STABLE
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/5a7e75849cb595943fc605c4532716e9dd69f8a0
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
> be.
+1.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgre
On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If
you want t
On 2014-02-18 22:23:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
> >
> >Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
> >be.
Thirded.
> I
--On 18. Februar 2014 22:23:59 +0200 Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If
you want to back-patch it, I won't object.
That was my original feeling, too, but +1 for backpatching.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-commi
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:39:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
>
> Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
> be.
+1 for back-patching.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter ht
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:39:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> > Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
>>
>> Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
>> be.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> +1 for back-patching.
> Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
> as it is a new feature :)
I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
requires correction. Many of our users couldn't run
On 02/20/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
+1 for back-patching.
Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
as it is a new feature :)
I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
requir
11 matches
Mail list logo
