On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
>> I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.
> There are no "hacks". There are some carefully designed changes with
> input from multiple people, including yourself, and it copes as
> gracefully as it can with backwards compatibility requirements.
You have comments from three different people, all experienced
hackers, disagreeing with this position; Heikki and I have both
proposed alternate approaches. I'm not sure that we're at a point
where we can say that we know what the best solution is, but I think
it is clear that there's enough concern about this that you ought not
to be denying that there is a problem.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2012-02-29 16:46:31|
|Subject: LIST OWNED BY...|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-02-29 16:24:21|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|