Michael Paquier writes:
> I am wondering if it would be worth adding an AssertMacro() like in
> this one, though:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ykap64jvztmgc...@paquier.xyz
Kind of doubt it. It'd bloat debug builds with a lot of redundant
checks, and probably never catch anything. For
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 05:31:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> After looking through this thread, I side with Robert: we should reject
> the remainder of this patch. It gives up page layout flexibility that
> we might want back someday. Moreover, I didn't see any hard evidence
> offered that there's
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Uh, XTS doesn't require a nonce, so why are talking about nonces in this
> thread?
Because some other proposals do, or could, require a per-page nonce.
After looking through this thread, I side with Robert: we should reject
the remainder of this patch. It gives up page l
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 03:11:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > But if we were in a green-field situation we'd probably not want to
> > use up several bytes for a nonse anyway. You said so yourself.
>
> I don't know what statement of mine y
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 21:11, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > But if we were in a green-field situation we'd probably not want to
> > use up several bytes for a nonse anyway. You said so yourself.
>
> I don't know what statement of mine you're talki
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 1:09 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I got that much, of course. That will work, I suppose, but it'll be
> > > the first and last time that anybody gets to do that (unless we accept
> > > it being incompatible with encryption).
> >
> > Yeah.
>
> I don't know that I agree with
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:37 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> > > every user, even those not using the feature. Which
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> > every user, even those not using the feature. Which you said yourself.
>
> Unfortunately, I think there's
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:37 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> > every user, even those not using the feature. Which you said yourself.
>
> Unfortunately, I think there's bound
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> every user, even those not using the feature. Which you said yourself.
Unfortunately, I think there's bound to be some cost. We can avoid
using the space in the page for
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:11 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't know what statement of mine you're talking about here, and
> while I don't love using up space for a nonce, it seems to be the way
> this encryption stuff works. I don't see that there's a reasonable
> alternative, green field or no.
I
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> But if we were in a green-field situation we'd probably not want to
> use up several bytes for a nonse anyway. You said so yourself.
I don't know what statement of mine you're talking about here, and
while I don't love using up space for a n
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:01 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Because there's no place to put them in the existing page format. We
> jammed checksums into the 2-byte field that had previously been set
> aside for the TLI, but that wasn't really an ideal solution because it
> meant we ended up with a checksu
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 4:34 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Also, I can't see why we would allow page-level layout changes in
> initdb; that seems like the wrong place to do that. All page layout
> currently is at compile-time; even checksums (which can be
> enabled/disabled in initdb) have rese
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > Here's a new 0001 to keep CFBot happy.
>
> This seems like it would conflict with the proposal from
>
> http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmoad8wmn6i1mmuo+4znege3hd57ys8uv8uzm7cneqy3...@mail.gmail.com
> which I still hope to advance in so
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 21:45, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > Here's a new 0001 to keep CFBot happy.
>
> This seems like it would conflict with the proposal from
> http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmoad8wmn6i1mmuo+4znege3hd57ys8uv8uzm7cneqy3...@mail.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Here's a new 0001 to keep CFBot happy.
This seems like it would conflict with the proposal from
http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmoad8wmn6i1mmuo+4znege3hd57ys8uv8uzm7cneqy3...@mail.gmail.com
which I still hope to advance in some form at an app
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 10:50, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 07:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:09:35PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > > PageInit MAXALIGNs the size of the special area that it receives as an
> > > argument; so any chan
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 07:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:09:35PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > PageInit MAXALIGNs the size of the special area that it receives as an
> > argument; so any changes to the page header that would misalign the
> > value would be AM-sp
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:09:35PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> PageInit MAXALIGNs the size of the special area that it receives as an
> argument; so any changes to the page header that would misalign the
> value would be AM-specific; in which case it is quite unlikely that
> this is the r
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 09:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 05:09:10PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Not all clusters have checksums enabled (boo!, but we can't
> > realistically fix that), so on-disk corruption could reasonably
> > propagate to the rest of such syst
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 05:09:10PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Not all clusters have checksums enabled (boo!, but we can't
> realistically fix that), so on-disk corruption could reasonably
> propagate to the rest of such system. Additionally, checksums are only
> checked on read, and upda
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 06:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:24:58PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > A first good reason to do this is preventing further damage when a
> > page is corrupted: if I can somehow overwrite pd_special,
> > non-assert-enabled builds would s
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:24:58PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> A first good reason to do this is preventing further damage when a
> page is corrupted: if I can somehow overwrite pd_special,
> non-assert-enabled builds would start reading and writing at arbitrary
> offsets from the page po
Hi,
I noticed that effectively all indexes use the special region of a
page to store some index-specific data on the page. In all cases I've
noticed, this is a constant-sized struct, located at what is
effectively a fixed offset from the end of the page; indicated on the
page by pd_special; and ac
25 matches
Mail list logo
