| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash(dot)shankaran(at)intel(dot)com>, "Devulapalli, Raghuveer" <raghuveer(dot)devulapalli(at)intel(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Updating CRC32C with AVX-512 Algorithm. |
| Date: | 2024-12-12 22:14:33 |
| Message-ID: | Z1tgSblZeRgrL9U3@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:45:29AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Frankly, we should just move away from using CRCs. They're good for cases
> where short runs of bit flips are much more likely than other kinds of errors
> and where the amount of data covered by them has a low upper bound. That's not
> at all the case for WAL records. It'd not matter too much if CRCs were cheap
> to compute - but they aren't. We should instead move to some more generic
> hashing algorithm, decent ones are much faster.
Upthread [0], I wondered aloud about trying to reuse the page checksum code
for this. IIRC there was a lot of focus on performance when that was
added, and IME it catches problems decently well.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/ZrUcX2kq-0doNBea%40nathan
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-12-12 23:04:02 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Previous Message | Michael Harris | 2024-12-12 22:13:26 | Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS |