On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> One thing I'm not too sure about is how to extend the page format to
>> handle optional features. For example, suppose we want to add 2 bytes
>> to the page header for a checksum (or 4 bytes, or any other number).
>> Ideally, I'd like to not use up those 2 bytes on pages that aren't
>> checksummed. What do we do about that?
>
> I'm having a hard time getting excited about adding that requirement on
> top of all the others that we have for this feature. In particular, if
> we insist on that, there is exactly zero chance of turning checksums on
> on-the-fly, because you won't be able to do it if the page is full.
>
> The scheme that seems to me to make the most sense for checksums,
> if we grant Simon's postulate that a 2-byte checksum is enough, is
> (1) repurpose the top N bits of pd_flags as a page version number,
> for some N;
> (2) repurpose pd_pagesize_version as the checksum, with the
> understanding that you can't have a checksum in version-0 pages.
>
> (Simon's current patch seems to be an overengineered version of that.
> Possibly we should also ask ourselves how much we really need pd_tli
> and whether that couldn't be commandeered as the checksum field.)
>
> I see the page versioning stuff as mainly being of interest for changes
> that are more invasive than this, for instance tuple-header or data
> changes.
Well, OK, so... it wouldn't bother me a bit to steal pd_tli for this,
although Simon previously objected to steeling even half of it, when I
suggested that upthread.
But I don't see the point of your first proposal: keeping the page
version right where it is is a good idea, and we should do it. We
could steel some *high* order bits from that field without breaking
anything, but moving it around seems like it will complicate life to
no good purpose.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
