On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:45:29AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote: > Frankly, we should just move away from using CRCs. They're good for cases > where short runs of bit flips are much more likely than other kinds of errors > and where the amount of data covered by them has a low upper bound. That's not > at all the case for WAL records. It'd not matter too much if CRCs were cheap > to compute - but they aren't. We should instead move to some more generic > hashing algorithm, decent ones are much faster.
Upthread [0], I wondered aloud about trying to reuse the page checksum code for this. IIRC there was a lot of focus on performance when that was added, and IME it catches problems decently well. [0] https://postgr.es/m/ZrUcX2kq-0doNBea%40nathan -- nathan
