From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
Date: | 2011-02-22 14:34:34 |
Message-ID: | 4D63C97A.3020900@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.02.2011 16:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 22.02.2011 15:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It would be good to perform those sanity checks anyway.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's good; I think it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise
>>> someone can generate arbitrary garbage, hash it, and feed it to us.
>>> No?
>>
>> No, the hash is stored in shared memory. The hash of the garbage has to
>> match.
>
> Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just
> store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash
was that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more
importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not
convinced either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-22 14:50:43 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-22 14:29:20 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |