On 27.08.24 17:26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:16:51PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 27.08.24 15:44, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:nathandbossart@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should we error if both --data-checksum and --no-data-checksums are
>>> specified? IIUC with 0001, we'll use whichever is specified last.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, that is a good question. We have never (to my recollection)
>>> flipped a default quite like this before. I'm inclined to leave it as
>>> "last one wins", as I can see automated systems appending their desired
>>> selection to the end of the arg list, and expecting it to work.
>>
>> Yes, last option wins is the normal expected behavior.
>
> WFM
>
> 001_verify_heapam fails with this patch set. I think you may need to use
> --no-data-checksums in that test, too. Otherwise, it looks pretty good to
> me.
I have committed 0001 (the new option) and 0004 (the docs tweak). I
think there is consensus for the rest, too, but I'll leave it for a few
more days to think about. I guess the test failure has to be addressed.
