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: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 16:24:21
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKHZmUJNwXAXYAyd5RWipmQV8Rg0fHidcgCHD8vCa9b-Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

> Less so than in the current form - you wouldn't need a flag to indicate
> whether the page has a valid checksum or not, which would clean it up quite
> a bit - but still.

I agree this would remove the reliance on a bit in the page header and
so make it even more robust.

I'll add the 2 phase enabling feature, making it happen at database level.

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-29 16:41:09
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-29 16:14:06
Subject: Re: COPY with hints, rebirth

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