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

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2009-12-01 20:58:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> OK, fair enough.  My implication that only page formats were at issue
>> was off-base.  My underlying point was that I think we have to be
>> prepared to write code that can understand old binary formats (on the
>> tuple, page, or relation level) if we want this to work and work
>> reliably.  I believe that there has been much resistance to that idea.
> We keep looking for cheaper alternatives.  There may not be any...

Yeah. I think we might need to bite the bullet on that and start 
thinking more about different strategies for handling page versioning to 
satisfy various needs. I've been convinced for a while that some sort of 
versioning scheme is inevitable, but I do understand the reluctance.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko KreenDate: 2009-12-01 21:08:06
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-01 20:41:43
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

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