| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2013-04-13 07:39:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMK78MAn54hqFw6NzuHji=fW4MPSG8ex+FKguMHfwHNUbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 April 2013 23:21, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>> In general, we have more flexibility with WAL because there is no
>> upgrade issue. It would be nice to share code with the data page
>> checksum algorithm; but really we should just use whatever offers the
>> best trade-off in terms of complexity, performance, and error detection
>> rate.
>>
>> I don't think we need to decide all of this right now. Personally, I'm
>> satisfied having SIMD checksums on data pages now and leaving WAL
>> optimization until later.
>
> +1
OK, lets drop that idea then. SIMD checksums for 16-bit page checksums
only in this release.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-04-13 12:56:46 | Re: Process title for autovac |
| Previous Message | Sameer Thakur | 2013-04-13 06:45:57 | Re: Detach/attach table and index data files from one cluster to another |