| From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-02 14:09:38 |
| Message-ID: | 48E4D622.1010608@esilo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I ran the regressions and several concurrent benchmark tests which
>> passed successfully, but I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit due to the
>> the fact that it's late, it's just a quick hack, and I haven't gone
>> through the buffer manager locking code in awhile.
>
> Don't know how I missed this obvious one... should not be coding this
> late @ night :(
>
> Patch updated.
>
I read through this patch and am curious why 0xdeadbeef was used as an
uninitialized value for the page crc. Is this value somehow less likely
to have collisons than zero (or any other arbitrary value)?
Would it not be better to add a boolean bit or byte to inidcate the crc
state?
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-02 14:15:10 | Re: Transactions within a function body |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-02 14:08:23 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |