| 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: | 4F4E4839.60001@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Wultsch | 2012-02-29 15:56:10 | Re: swapcache-style cache? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-29 15:42:17 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |