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
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks s
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
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
va
On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
>
> --On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
> 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 cann
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
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
need it?
It's along th
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
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 add
