On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:45:29AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Frankly, we should just move away from using CRCs. They're good for cases
> where short runs of bit flips are much more likely than other kinds of errors
> and where the amount of data covered by them has a low upper bound. That's not
> at all the case for WAL records. It'd not matter too much if CRCs were cheap
> to compute - but they aren't. We should instead move to some more generic
> hashing algorithm, decent ones are much faster.
Upthread [0], I wondered aloud about trying to reuse the page checksum code
for this. IIRC there was a lot of focus on performance when that was
added, and IME it catches problems decently well.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/ZrUcX2kq-0doNBea%40nathan
--
nathan
