Re: clarify "rewritten" in pg_checksums docs

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clarify "rewritten" in pg_checksums docs
Date: 2020-09-02 08:26:16
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Well, I was thinking less technically accurate and more descriptive for end
> users, hiding the implementation details. "Rewrite" sounds to me more like
> changing data rather than amending pages with a checksum keeping data intact.
> Either way, adding "in-place" is an improvement IMO.

Using rewritten still sounds more adapted to me, as we still write the
thing with chunks of size BLCKSZ. No objections with the addition of
"in-place" for that sentence. Any extra opinions?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2020-09-02 08:33:57 Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-09-02 08:06:15 Re: Include access method in listTables output