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

Re: AW: Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...
Date: 2001-03-01 15:35:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> it's certainly not what I thought we had agreed to implement.

> Hmm, strange. I thought that we had agreed upon a 32 bit CRC
> on the grounds, that it would be strong enough to guard a single
> log record.

I thought that, and still think it, but I was outvoted.  However I
see no value in the present actual implementation ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-01 17:24:21
Subject: WAL's single point of failure: latest CHECKPOINT record
Previous:From: Olivier PRENANTDate: 2001-03-01 12:00:57
Subject: Re: Re: int8 beta5 broken?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group