Re: AW: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

[Tom Lane]

Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> it's certainly not what I thought we had agreed to implement.

> Hmm, strange. I thought that we had agreed upon a 32 bit CRC
> on the grounds, that it would be strong enough to guard a single
> log record.

I thought that, and still think it, but I was outvoted.  However I
see no value in the present actual implementation ...

                        regards, tom lane