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

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, 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: 2012-02-29 15:46:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29.02.2012 17:42, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>  wrote:
>> Surely it can be done online. You'll just need a third state between off and
>> on, where checksums are written but not verified, while the cluster is
>> scanned.
> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?

I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page 
header. Less so than in the current form - you wouldn't need a flag to 
indicate whether the page has a valid checksum or not, which would clean 
it up quite a bit - but still.

   Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rob WultschDate: 2012-02-29 15:56:10
Subject: Re: swapcache-style cache?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-29 15:42:17
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group