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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nM+ddY6RO3r9WztXsoag1M4=pso8SiJn5zfk-LXhrntSZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, but I'd rather see us commit a checksum patch that sometimes
> carries a major performance penalty and then work to reduce that
> penalty later than never commit anything at all.  I think it's
> unrealistic to assume we're going to get this perfectly right in one
> try.  I am not sure whether this particular patch is close enough for
> government work or still needs more hacking, and it may well be the
> latter, but there is no use holding our breath and waiting for
> absolute perfection.

Well said. My view completely.

I do want jam tomorrow, I just want bread and butter today as well.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.