Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums
Date
Msg-id 20150713211651.GD25610@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-07-13 15:50:44 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Another possibility is some kind of a page-level indicator of what binary
> format is in use on a given page. For checksums maybe a single bit would
> suffice (indicating that you should verify the page checksum). Another use
> case is using this to finally ditch all the old VACUUM FULL code in
> HeapTupleSatisfies*().

That's a bad idea, because that bit then'd not be protected by the
checksum.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.5 Alpha 1 build fail with perl 5.22