| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Trying to break online checksums with LLMs |
| Date: | 2026-09-15 11:59:10 |
| Message-ID: | aqkzDnDseqhLpejB@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 11:59:15PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> But at any rate, this is clearly not the time to design that.
>
> If we revert we should keep online checksums in master and only pull it out of
> 19, to allow for this to be fixed early in 20, and avoid the churn. I held off
> from backpatching the open item fix for this very reason; unless I hear
> otherwise by Wednesday I'll go ahead with the revert, else the backpatch.
> Adding RMT to the thread to keep everyone in the loop.
Thanks for the heads up. Based on the discussion, it sounds like reverting
is the right call, unfortunately.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-09-15 12:05:12 | Re: add list of major features to the v19 release notes |
| Previous Message | Salvatore Dipietro | 2026-09-15 11:46:23 | Re: use a non-locking initial test in TAS_SPIN on AArch64 |