From: | Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: CRC |
Date: | 2000-12-11 20:42:31 |
Message-ID: | 20001211144231.A5929@em.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:09:01AM -0800, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > One thing we should look at before going with a 64-bit method is the
> > extra storage space for the larger checksum. We can clearly afford
> > an extra 32 bits for a checksum on an 8K disk page, but if Vadim is
> > envisioning checksumming each individual XLOG record then the extra
> > space is more annoying.
> We need in checksum for each record. But there is no problem with
> 64bit CRC: log record header is 8byte aligned, so CRC addition
> will add 8bytes to header anyway. Is there any CRC64 code?
All you need is a good 64-bit polynomial. Unfortunately, I've been
unable to find one that's been analyzed to any amount.
--
Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-11 20:57:08 | Re: (one more time) Patches with vacuum fixes available. |
Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-12-11 20:32:10 | (one more time) Patches with vacuum fixes available. |