Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: 2012-01-06 01:10:17
Message-ID: 20120106011017.GM24234@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> I discover that non-all-zeroes holes are fairly common, just not very frequent.

Curious, might be interesting to find out why.

> That may or may not be a problem, but not something to be dealt with
> here and now.

But I agree that it's not the job of this patch/effort. It sounds like
we have clear indication, however, that those areas, as they are not
necessairly all zeros, should be included in the checksum.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2012-01-06 03:59:33 Re: pgsql: Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-06 00:37:53 Poorly thought out code in vacuum