Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-30 15:11:30
Message-ID: 87y706azj1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Please, DO NOT MOVE position of page version in PageHeader structure! And
>>> PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION should be bump to 5.
>>
>> Umm, any in-place upgrade should be capable of handling changes to the
>> page header.  Of, did I miss something significant in the in-place
>
> I thought that was kind of the point of in place upgrade.

Sure, but he has to have a reliable way to tell what version of the page
header he's looking at...

What I'm wondering though -- are we going to make CRCs mandatory? Or set aside
the 4 bytes even if you're not using them? Because if the size of the page
header varies depending on whether you're using CRCs that sounds like it would
be quite a pain.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-10-30 15:14:34
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-30 15:11:21
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group