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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +