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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id 653.1330562927@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> writes:
> On 2/29/12 3:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> .. in fact this is precisely what killed Zdenek Kotala's idea of
>> upgrading.

> This is also why Simon has avoided the whole upgrade thing with his 16 bit checksum idea (otherwise presumably we'd
belooking at bigger checksums anyway).
 

> I get that fussing around with the version field is ugly. If there was another way to do this without breaking
pg_upgradethen it would be silly to mess with the version field. Unfortunately, there is no other way.
 

Fundamentally, what is going on here is that several of us think that we
need a page format upgrade infrastructure first, and then we can think
about adding checksums.  Simon would like to cram checksums in without
building such infrastructure, regardless of the consequences in code
ugliness or future maintainability.  Personally, I think that is a bad
tradeoff.  Eventually we are going to have to build that infrastructure,
and the more we've kluged the page header format in the meanwhile, the
more unpleasant it's going to be.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Client Messages