Re: Page Checksums
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Page Checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nM+7G_1sy7F+g9HyNChVOHmX6jNiZoXpf1LLU=5pnoJffA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Page Checksums (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Page Checksums
|
| Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: