Re: Page Checksums
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-12-28T09:31:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > What I'm not too clear > about is whether a 16-bit checksum meets the needs of people who want > checksums. We need this now, hence the gymnastics to get it into this release. 16-bits of checksum is way better than zero bits of checksum, probably about a million times better (numbers taken from papers quoted earlier on effectiveness of checksums). The strategy I am suggesting is 16-bits now, 32/64 later. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services