From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
Date: | 2007-01-04 19:18:12 |
Message-ID: | 459D52F4.9070704@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> writes:
>> Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
>
> Is anything known about the error detection capabilities of Adler32?
> There's a lot of math behind CRCs but AFAIR Adler's method is pretty
> much ad-hoc.
As I understand it, it's kinda well studied; but has known
weaknesses in its ability to detect errors under some conditions.
Quoting wikipedia:
"Adler-32 has a weakness for short messages with few hundred bytes,
because the checksums for these messages have a poor coverage of
the 32 available bits...Jonathan Stone discovered in 2001 that Adler-32
has a weakness...An extended explanation can be found in RFC 3309,
which mandates the use of CRC32 instead of Adler-32...."
I'm not sure if I'm kidding or not here, but I wonder if the not
uncommon requests on the lists of weakening protective features
in postgresql (full-page writes, fsync off, "but mysql says", etc)
suggest that a "dont_protect_against_os_or_hardware_failures" mode
might be in demand for non-critical / development instances.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-04 19:33:03 | Re: Reverse-sort indexes and NULLS FIRST/LAST sorting |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-04 19:15:17 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-04 19:43:11 | Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
Previous Message | SenTnel | 2007-01-04 18:14:06 | Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run |