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

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-02 20:13:49
Message-ID: 20081002201349.GG4151@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 October 2008 10:27:52 Tom Lane wrote:

> > Your optimism is showing ;-).  XLogInsert routinely shows up as a major
> > CPU hog in any update-intensive test, and AFAICT that's mostly from the
> > CRC calculation for WAL records.
> 
> Yeah... for those who run on filesystems that do checksumming for you, I'd bet 
> they'd much rather see time spent in turning that off rather than 
> checksumming everything else.  (just guessing) 

I don't think it can be turned off, because ISTR a failed checksum is
used to detect end of the WAL stream to be recovered.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-02 20:18:12
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2008-10-02 19:37:01
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

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