| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2013-04-16 21:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | 9153.1366147218@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> My only review comments are to ask for some explanation of the magic numbers...
> The specific values used are mostly magic to me too. As mentioned in a
> short sentence in the patch, the values are experimentally chosen,
> guided by some intuition about what good values should look like.
There actually is quite a lot of theory out there about this sort of
thing. If we are inventing our own checksum function then We're Doing
It Wrong. We should be adopting an existing, proven function.
"Experimentally derived" is about the worst recommendation I can think
of in this area.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-04-16 21:30:29 | Re: [GENERAL] currval and DISCARD ALL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-16 21:09:19 | Re: [GENERAL] currval and DISCARD ALL |