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+U5nMLNpgFPu1ER6KGb8p54h7Sv0w+_ZaYZMJZqQcJAf36jAw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:21:42 PM Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (1)  I like the choice of Fletcher-16.  It should be very good at
>> detecting problems while being a lot less expensive that an official
>> CRC calculation.
> I wonder if CRC32c wouldn't be a good alternative given more and more cpus
> (its in SSE 4.2) support calculating it in silicon.

We're trying to get something that fits in 16bits for this release.
I'm guessing CRC32c doesn't?


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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?