On 22.02.2011 16:29, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On 22.02.2011 15:52, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Yes. It would be good to perform those sanity checks anyway.
I don't think it's good; I think it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise
someone can generate arbitrary garbage, hash it, and feed it to us.
No?
No, the hash is stored in shared memory. The hash of the garbage has to
match.
Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just
store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash
was that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more
importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not
convinced either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
