| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, stark(at)mit(dot)edu |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 10:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLNpgFPu1ER6KGb8p54h7Sv0w+_ZaYZMJZqQcJAf36jAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:21:42 PM Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (1) I like the choice of Fletcher-16. It should be very good at
>> detecting problems while being a lot less expensive that an official
>> CRC calculation.
> I wonder if CRC32c wouldn't be a good alternative given more and more cpus
> (its in SSE 4.2) support calculating it in silicon.
We're trying to get something that fits in 16bits for this release.
I'm guessing CRC32c doesn't?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-04 11:14:29 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-01-04 09:20:20 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |