From: | Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CRCs (was: beta testing version) |
Date: | 2000-12-07 21:58:03 |
Message-ID: | 20001207155803.B1939@em.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:25:41PM -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> That requires an extra out-of-sequence write.
Ayup!
> Generally, there are no guarantees, only reasonable expectations.
I would differ, but that's irrelevant.
> A 64-bit CRC would give sufficient confidence...
This is part of what I was getting at, in a roundabout way. If you use
a CRC, hash, or any other kind of non-trivial check code, you have a
certain level of confidence in the data, but not a guarantee. If you
decide, based on your expert opinions, that a 32 or 64 bit CRC or hash
gives you an adequate level of confidence in the event of a crash, then
I'll be satisfied, but don't call it a guarantee.
Them's small nits we're picking at, though.
--
Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Pilley | 2000-12-07 22:43:27 | Problems with Mandrake RPM |
Previous Message | Darrin Ladd | 2000-12-07 21:40:00 | Re: Trigger Problems? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin A. Marques | 2000-12-07 22:22:55 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Guenter | 2000-12-07 21:47:07 | Re: CRCs (was: beta testing version) |