| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: backup manifests |
| Date: | 2019-11-19 13:49:24 |
| Message-ID: | f2fb57c2-027b-ac0c-583c-738188ebc850@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/19 5:00 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>
>
> My colleague Suraj did testing and noticed the performance impact
> with the checksums. On further testing, he found that specifically with
> sha its more of performance impact.
>
>
I admit I haven't been following along closely, but why do we need a
cryptographic checksum here instead of, say, a CRC? Do we think that
somehow the checksum might be forged? Use of cryptographic hashes as
general purpose checksums has become far too common IMNSHO.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2019-11-19 14:13:49 | Re: physical slot xmin dependency on logical slot? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-19 12:48:59 | Re: Hypothetical indexes using BRIN broken since pg10 |