| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: better page-level checksums |
| Date: | 2022-06-09 21:35:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzndtjJazjfNxUQXgzDK1hMOCh2gavYxS7i_hr=oTA1L_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> My preference is for an approach that builds on that, or at least
> doesn't significantly complicate it. So a cryptographic hash or nonce
> can go in the special area proper (structs like BTPageOpaqueData don't
> need any changes), but at a page offset before the special area proper
> -- not after.
Minor correction: I meant "before structs like BTPageOpaqueData,
earlier in the page and in the special area proper".
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-06-09 22:24:29 | Re: pgcon unconference / impact of block size on performance |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-06-09 21:33:55 | Re: better page-level checksums |