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/
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) |
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) |