| From: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-11-09 05:18:13 |
| Message-ID: | 509C9215.2080303@krogh.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/11/12 02:01, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As I understand it, the main part of the remaining work to be done for
> the checksums patch (at least the first commit) is to have a better way
> to enable/disable them.
>
> For the sake of simplicity (implementation as well as usability), it
> seems like there is agreement that checksums should be enabled or
> disabled for the entire instance, not per-table.
I can definately see that simplicity is an argument here, but
I can easily imagine that some performance hungry users
would prefer to be able to disable the functionality on a
per table level. UNCHECKSUMMED TABLES (similar to UNLOGGED TABLES).
I would definately stuff our system in state = 2 in your
description if it was available.
--
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-09 05:50:34 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-11-09 05:05:43 | Re: Enabling Checksums |