Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dan Scales <scales(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2012-01-27 13:19:32
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYFk8eHs+AnDbE4hd3RDHTeVOta0R0upmEK7ay3D-ye-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Dan Scales <scales(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you moved the checksum calculation (PageSetVerificationInfo) to mdwrite() rather than smgrwrite().  If there were every another storage backend, it would have to duplicate the checksum check, right?  Is there a disadvantage to putting it in smgrwrite()?

The smgr and md layers don't currently know anything about the page
format, and I imagine we want to keep it that way. It seems like the
right place for this is in some higher layer, like bufmgr.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-01-27 13:35:26 Re: Group commit, revised
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-01-27 10:49:44 Re: patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS