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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to