Re: Enabling Checksums

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Date: 2013-03-19 18:07:53
Message-ID: 8385.1363716473@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I will move back to verifying the page hole, as well.

> There are a few approaches:

> 1. Verify that the page hole is zero before write and after read.
> 2. Include it in the calculation (if we think there are some corner
> cases where the hole might not be all zero).
> 3. Zero the page hole before write, and verify that it's zero on read.
> This can be done during the memcpy at no performance penalty in
> PageSetChecksumOnCopy(), but that won't work for
> PageSetChecksumInplace().

TBH, I do not think that the checksum code ought to be so familiar with
the page format as to know that there *is* a hole, much less be willing
to zero out what it thinks is a hole. I consider #3 totally
unacceptable from a safety standpoint, and don't much care for #1
either. #2 sounds like the thing to do.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2013-03-19 18:32:31 Re: Enabling Checksums
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-03-19 17:58:09 Re: Improving avg performance for numeric