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

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: stark(at)mit(dot)edu, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2011-12-28 02:54:02
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+WUMu5FvuyK+hPGoxdgMq4xRqd5tFW-qBaDYNt2b8A=Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:

> This chicken-and-egg
> problem requires the checksum to be implemented first.

v2 of checksum patch, using a conditional copy if checksumming is
enabled, so locking is removed.

Thanks to Andres for thwacking me with the cluestick, though I have
used a simple copy rather than a copy & calc.

Tested using make installcheck with parameter on/off, then restart and
vacuumdb to validate all pages.

Reviews, objections, user interface tweaks all welcome.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment: checksum16.v2.patch
Description: text/x-patch (25.5 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: YAMAMOTO TakashiDate: 2011-12-28 03:48:02
Subject: ordering op for WHERE
Previous:From: Thom BrownDate: 2011-12-28 02:00:38
Subject: Re: Misleading CREATE TABLE error

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