| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Page Checksums |
| Date: | 2011-12-27 18:39:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1325011176.14697.32.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 07:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I
> think it would be regrettable if everyone had to give up 4 bytes per
> page because some people want checksums.
I can understand that some people might not want the CPU expense of
calculating CRCs; or the upgrade expense to convert to new pages; but do
you think 4 bytes out of 8192 is a real concern?
(Aside: it would be MAXALIGNed anyway, so probably more like 8 bytes.)
I was thinking we'd go in the other direction: expanding the header
would take so much effort, why not expand it a little more to give some
breathing room for the future?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-12-27 18:46:24 | Re: Page Checksums |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-12-27 16:02:40 | Re: reprise: pretty print viewdefs |