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 20120106011017.GM24234@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 Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
> I discover that non-all-zeroes holes are fairly common, just not very frequent.

Curious, might be interesting to find out why.

> That may or may not be a problem, but not something to be dealt with
> here and now.

But I agree that it's not the job of this patch/effort.  It sounds like
we have clear indication, however, that those areas, as they are not
necessairly all zeros, should be included in the checksum.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Poorly thought out code in vacuum
Next
From: Alex Hunsaker
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.