| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Page Checksums |
| Date: | 2011-12-28 09:31:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+7G_1sy7F+g9HyNChVOHmX6jNiZoXpf1LLU=5pnoJffA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What I'm not too clear
> about is whether a 16-bit checksum meets the needs of people who want
> checksums.
We need this now, hence the gymnastics to get it into this release.
16-bits of checksum is way better than zero bits of checksum, probably
about a million times better (numbers taken from papers quoted earlier
on effectiveness of checksums).
The strategy I am suggesting is 16-bits now, 32/64 later.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-12-28 10:27:16 | Re: Pause at end of recovery |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-12-28 09:22:14 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |