Re: Checksums, state of play

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 03:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Neither do I. It's pretty clear from our last discussion that the
> > "fix" proposed doesn't actually work fully so I don't think its going
> > to be either more robust or more certain to give low false positives.
> > So I don't think more time "fixing" this will actually improve the
> > situation.
>
> I hope that's not true, and I certainly don't think it's true. Like
> Tom, I'd like to see you keep working on this (or maybe someone else
> will pick it up) for 9.3. I agree that our most recent discussing
> left off with a somewhat depressing conclusion, but I don't think that
> means we should give up; I think it just means that we need a better
> idea than the ones we've had so far. I guess it's possible that there
> is no better idea out there, but I think it's more likely that we just
> haven't thought of it yet. I feel like we are close to unraveling it,
> and just not quite there yet. I might be wrong.

Yep, good summary. Giving ourselves a few months to think about it and
consider other failure cases will make this a great 9.3 addition.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +