Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
>
>> I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.
>
> There are no "hacks". There are some carefully designed changes with
> input from multiple people, including yourself, and it copes as
> gracefully as it can with backwards compatibility requirements.

You have comments from three different people, all experienced
hackers, disagreeing with this position; Heikki and I have both
proposed alternate approaches.  I'm not sure that we're at a point
where we can say that we know what the best solution is, but I think
it is clear that there's enough concern about this that you ought not
to be denying that there is a problem.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company