Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-01 23:41:24
Message-ID: 10407.1222904484@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> a) You wouldn't have to keep the lock while doing the I/O.

Hoo, yeah, so the period of holding the share-lock could well be
*shorter* than it is now.  Most especially so if the write() blocks
instead of just transferring the data to kernel space and returning.

I wonder whether that could mean that it's a win to double-buffer
even if we aren't computing a checksum?  Nah, probably not.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2008-10-02 00:17:40
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-10-01 23:29:21
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group