On 02/20/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com 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
--On 18. Februar 2014 22:23:59 +0200 Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi
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
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
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com 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
