On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:19:56AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:01 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote: > > I think we should first deal with using it for page checksums and if > > future versions want to reuse some of the code for WAL checksums then > > we can rearrange the code. > > Sounds good to me, although I expect we at least want any assembly to be > in a separate file (if the specialization makes it in 9.3).
Sounds good. Simon has done a good job shepherding this to completion. My only question is whether the 16-bit page checksums stored in WAL reduce our ability to detect failed/corrupt writes to WAL? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers