From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP checksums patch |
Date: | 2012-11-09 23:25:15 |
Message-ID: | 1352503515.26644.24.camel@sussancws0025 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 10:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I think that's OK, because it's still protected by the WAL CRC, and
> > there's no expectation that the checksum is correct in shared buffers,
> > and the correct checksum should be set on the next checkpoint. Just an
> > observation.
>
> We'd need to document that emphatically. Otherwise folks running on ZFS
> and/or FusionIO with atomic writes (and, in the future, BTRFS) will
> assume that they can turn "full_page_writes" off and checksums on, and
> clearly that won't work with the current code. I think that's an
> acceptable limitation, I just think we need to document it carefully,
> and maybe throw a warning if people start up in that configuration.
What situation are you concerned about here? I think that COW
filesystems should still be safe with full_page_writes off, right?
The checksum is calculated before every write, and the COW filesystems
do atomic writes, so the checksums should always be fine. What am I
missing?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-09 23:42:52 | Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-09 23:24:25 | Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |