| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_control_checkpoint(): add "data_checksum_version" (Pg19)? |
| Date: | 2026-08-14 14:34:17 |
| Message-ID: | B0CEB0C1-A7BE-4A02-8339-2E8E94C2F990@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 14 Aug 2026, at 07:47, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for the updates!
Thanks for review!
> +# Regardless of the new state, pg_control_init() should still report checksums
> +# as off.
>
> Could we also test the opposite case and ensure pg_control_init() still reports 1?
> Also, as 0001 fixes the offline case too, worth checking pg_checksums leaves the value
> reported by pg_control_init() unchanged?
Sure, I can add that as well.
> And should this test be part of 0001 instead of 0002?
Agreed, it should.
> + version using an integer representation due to how they were originally
> + implementated.
>
> s/implementated/implemented/
Thanks, will fix.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-08-14 14:36:37 | Re: MERGE/SPLIT PARTITIONS issues/questions |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2026-08-14 14:29:23 | Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications |