Re: Page Checksums

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Page Checksums
Date: 2011-12-27 18:39:36
Message-ID: 1325011176.14697.32.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 07:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I
> think it would be regrettable if everyone had to give up 4 bytes per
> page because some people want checksums.

I can understand that some people might not want the CPU expense of
calculating CRCs; or the upgrade expense to convert to new pages; but do
you think 4 bytes out of 8192 is a real concern?

(Aside: it would be MAXALIGNed anyway, so probably more like 8 bytes.)

I was thinking we'd go in the other direction: expanding the header
would take so much effort, why not expand it a little more to give some
breathing room for the future?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-12-27 18:46:24 Re: Page Checksums
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-12-27 16:02:40 Re: reprise: pretty print viewdefs