Re: Enabling Checksums

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>

Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2013-04-13T07:39:59Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12 April 2013 23:21, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.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