Re: GUC for data checksums

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC for data checksums
Date: 2013-09-15 01:34:53
Message-ID: 7097A435B6AF50C655E1B46A@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
<andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> 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 the line with the other informational variables like block_size
et al. Do you want to have a function instead or what's your intention?

One benefit is to have 'em all in SHOW ALL which can be used to compare
database/cluster settings, to mention one use case i have in mind.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-09-15 02:02:05 Re: plpgsql.print_strict_params
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-09-15 00:14:42 Minmax indexes