Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8
Date: 2006-10-23 02:17:16
Message-ID: 10377.1161569836@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>>> Also, why are we more critical of an Intel-provided
>>> idea than any other idea we get from the community?
>>
>> Bitter experience with other companies.

> The problem is we have lots of companies involved, and I bet some we
> don't even know about (e.g. yahoo/gmail addresses),

It's not so much that I don't trust Intel as that a CRC algorithm is
exactly the sort of nice little self-contained thing that people love
to try to patent these days. What I am really afraid of is that someone
else has already invented this same method (or something close enough
to it) and filed for a patent that Intel doesn't know about either.
I'd be wondering about that no matter where the code had come from.

Given the numbers I posted earlier today, the proposal is dead in the
water anyway, quite aside from any legal considerations.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hitoshi Harada 2006-10-23 02:18:39 Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-10-23 02:09:52 Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum