Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On Friday, January 06, 2012 11:30:53 AM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
> >> I discover that non-all-zeroes holes are fairly common, just not very
> >> frequent.
> > 
> > Curious, might be interesting to find out why.
> > 
> >> That may or may not be a problem, but not something to be dealt with
> >> here and now.
> > 
> > But I agree that it's not the job of this patch/effort.  It sounds like
> > we have clear indication, however, that those areas, as they are not
> > necessairly all zeros, should be included in the checksum.
> 
> Disagree. Full page writes ignore the hole, so its appropriate to do
> so here also.
Well, ignoriging them in fpw has clear space benefits. Ignoring them while 
checksumming doesn't have that much of a benefit.

Andres