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+U5nMKHZmUJNwXAXYAyd5RWipmQV8Rg0fHidcgCHD8vCa9b-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

>> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?

> I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.

There are no "hacks". There are some carefully designed changes with
input from multiple people, including yourself, and it copes as
gracefully as it can with backwards compatibility requirements.

> Less so than in the current form - you wouldn't need a flag to indicate
> whether the page has a valid checksum or not, which would clean it up quite
> a bit - but still.

I agree this would remove the reliance on a bit in the page header and
so make it even more robust.

I'll add the 2 phase enabling feature, making it happen at database level.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY with hints, rebirth
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2