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

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, stark(at)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2012-02-29 16:41:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaQmOJG+ubfTmb6M1rVsYFm5f5rHAy3oesrJqGqakR8Gg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
>
>> I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.
>
> There are no "hacks". There are some carefully designed changes with
> input from multiple people, including yourself, and it copes as
> gracefully as it can with backwards compatibility requirements.

You have comments from three different people, all experienced
hackers, disagreeing with this position; Heikki and I have both
proposed alternate approaches.  I'm not sure that we're at a point
where we can say that we know what the best solution is, but I think
it is clear that there's enough concern about this that you ought not
to be denying that there is a problem.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thom BrownDate: 2012-02-29 16:46:31
Subject: LIST OWNED BY...
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-29 16:24:21
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

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