| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-03-02 07:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20180302074430.6opqukpeabbspcrm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-03-01 16:18:48 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-03-01 12:56:35 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > > I've tried to rebase this patch to 10 and, despite minor rebase issues
> > (oids, bgw_type, changes to specscanner), patch works fine.
> > > Do we provide backporting for such features?
> >
> > Definitely not. With very rare exceptions (OS compatibility and the
> > like), features aren't backported.
> >
>
> Yeah. And definitely not something that both changes the format of
> pg_control (by adding new possible values to the checksum field) *and* adds
> a new WAL record type...
And even more so, I'm not even sure it makes sense to try to get this
into v11. This is a medium-large complicated feature, submitted to the
last CF for v11. That's pretty late. Now, Magnus is a committer, but
nevertheless...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-02 07:49:29 | Re: Boolean partitions syntax |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-02 07:42:02 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL |