Re: AW: beta testing version

From: Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca>
To: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-07 00:56:04
Message-ID: 20001206185604.A22242@em.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:13:33PM +0000, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
> Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > - Assume that a CRC is a guarantee. A CRC would be a good addition to
> > help ensure the data wasn't broken by flakey drive firmware, but
> > doesn't guarantee consistency.
> Even a CRC per transaction (it could be a nice END record) ?

CRCs are designed to catch N-bit errors (ie N bits in a row with their
values flipped). N is (IIRC) the number of bits in the CRC minus one.
So, a 32-bit CRC can catch all 31-bit errors. That's the only guarantee
a CRC gives. Everything else has a 1 in 2^32-1 chance of producing the
same CRC as the original data. That's pretty good odds, but not a
guarantee.
--
Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> http://em.ca/~bruceg/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-12-07 01:55:39 Re: syntax of outer join in 7.1devel
Previous Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-07 00:53:37 Re: CRCs (was: beta testing version)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Myers 2000-12-07 01:11:41 Re: RFC C++ Interface
Previous Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-07 00:53:37 Re: CRCs (was: beta testing version)