Re: Checksums, state of play

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company