Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> it's certainly not what I thought we had agreed to implement.

> Hmm, strange. I thought that we had agreed upon a 32 bit CRC
> on the grounds, that it would be strong enough to guard a single
> log record.

I thought that, and still think it, but I was outvoted.  However I
see no value in the present actual implementation ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• AW: Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ... at 2001-03-01 08:06:46 from Zeugswetter Andreas SB

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-03-01 17:24:21
	Subject: WAL's single point of failure: latest CHECKPOINT record
Previous:	From: Olivier PRENANT	Date: 2001-03-01 12:00:57
	Subject: Re: Re: int8 beta5 broken?