| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2012-08-10 23:16:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1344640603.13187.19.camel@sussancws0025 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 21:49 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > v8 attached
>
> v10 attached.
>
> This patch covers all the valid concerns discussed and has been
> extensively tested.
Is there something I can do to help get this ready for the next
commitfest? I am willing to rebase it, but I was worried that might
cause confusion. I am also willing to review it after the rebase, of
course.
There are still a couple open issues, including:
* Store the checksum in the page version field or the TLI field?
* What mechanism to guarantee to the user that all pages are properly
protected by checksums (rather than just new pages)? In other words,
there are more than the two states represented by the GUC.
* What specific data is included in the checksum? I suggested that we
include the block number, and maybe the OID.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-10 23:19:45 | Re: bug of pg_trgm? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-10 23:15:00 | Re: bug of pg_trgm? |