| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "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>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-02 13:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920810020646r4c896440he466bc3610237fb3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> It's even worse than that. Two processes can both be fiddling hint bits on
> different tuples (or even the same tuple) at the same time.
Agreed. Back to the double-buffer idea, we could have a temporary
BLCKSZ buffer we could use immediately before write() which we could
copy the block to, perform the checksum on, and write out... is that
what you were thinking Tom?
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-02 13:50:07 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-02 13:45:02 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |