| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: clarify "rewritten" in pg_checksums docs |
| Date: | 2020-09-02 08:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20200902082348.GD2129@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Well, I was thinking less technically accurate and more descriptive for end
> users, hiding the implementation details. "Rewrite" sounds to me more like
> changing data rather than amending pages with a checksum keeping data intact.
> Either way, adding "in-place" is an improvement IMO.
Using rewritten still sounds more adapted to me, as we still write the
thing with chunks of size BLCKSZ. No objections with the addition of
"in-place" for that sentence. Any extra opinions?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2020-09-02 08:33:57 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-02 08:06:15 | Re: Include access method in listTables output |