Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Well, we're using the CRC in 3 separate places...
> (1) for xlog records
> (2) for complete blocks copied to xlog
> (3) for control files
> For (1), records are so short that probably CRC16 would be sufficient
> without increasing the error rate noticeably.
> I think I'd like to keep (3) at CRC64...its just too important. Plus
> thats slightly less code to change.
The control files are so short that CRC16 would be plenty.
> My money is on (2) being the source of most of that run-time anyway,
Undoubtedly, so there's not going to be much win from micro-optimization
by having several different CRC functions. I would go for CRC32 across
the board, myself.
regards, tom lane