RE: CRC was: Re: beta testing version

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Horst Herb'" <hherb(at)malleenet(dot)net(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: CRC was: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-07 20:01:25
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D31DB@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> > I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
> > till next monday.
>
> I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in
> our database for internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lot of
> hash libraries, tried different algorithms, and implemented a few
> myself. Which algorithm do you want? Have a look at the openssl
> libraries (www.openssl.org) for a start -if you don't find what
> you want let me know.

Thanks.

> As the logging might include large data blocks, especially
> now that we can TOAST our data,

TOAST breaks data into a few 2K (or so) tuples to be inserted
separately. But first after checkpoint btree split will require
logging of 2x8K record -:(

> I would strongly suggest to use strong hashes like RIPEMD or
> MD5 instead of CRC-32 and the like. Sure, it takes more time
> tocalculate and more place on the hard disk, but then: a database
> without data integrity (and means of _proofing_ integrity) is
> pretty worthless.

Other opinions? Also, we shouldn't forget licence issues.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-12-07 20:05:14 RE: Switch pg_ctl's default about waiting?
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-12-07 19:52:13 RE: beta testing version