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

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2011-12-24 15:54:36
Message-ID: 201112241654.36657.andres@anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Saturday, December 24, 2011 03:46:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > After the various recent discussions on list, I present what I believe
> > to be a working patch implementing 16-but checksums on all buffer
> > pages.
> 
> I think locking around hint-bit-setting is likely to be unworkable from
> a performance standpoint.  I also wonder whether it might not result in
> deadlocks.
Why don't you use the same tricks as the former patch and copy the buffer, 
compute the checksum on that, and then write out that copy (you can even do 
both at the same time). I have a hard time believing that the additional copy 
is more expensive than the locking.


Andres

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-12-24 15:56:58
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-24 14:46:16
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

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