Re: pg_control_checkpoint(): add "data_checksum_version" (Pg19)?

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: 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: 2026-08-12 00:29:46
Message-ID: CAHGQGwGC18ppyKm4pPtOGersw6-eFcuw5uLBp3Uqf2PdzGVD1w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 11:56 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> I'm leaning towards using an integer representation in v19, which is the safe
> option, and rethink it for v20 when we can consider it without any rush. A
> compromise could be do document the integer <=> state name mapping in the
> checksums section in the docs.

+1 to keep using "version" for now and clarify the mapping in the docs.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-08-12 00:59:26 Re: Fix archive restore race that could unlink WAL before rename
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-08-12 00:14:19 Re: [PATCH] Fix SIGSEGV in GrantLockLocal when OOM leaves LOCALLOCK.lockOwners NULL