Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id 20120104133157.GK24234@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon, all,

* Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
> (1) report all errors on a page, including errors that don't change
> PostgreSQL data. This involves checksumming long strings of zeroes,
> which the checksum algorithm can't tell apart from long strings of
> ones.

Do we actually know when/where it's supposed to be all zeros, and hence
could we check for that explicitly?  If we know what it's supposed to
be, in order to be consistent with other information, I could certainly
see value in actually checking that.

I don't think that's valuable enough to go breaking abstraction layers
or bending over backwards to do it though.  If we don't have the
knowledge, at the right level, that the data should all be zeros then
including those pieces in the CRC certainly makes sense to me.

Just my 2c.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2