Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> It could work that way, but I seriously doubt that a technique
> only mentioned in dispatches one month before the last CF is
> likely to become trustable code within one month. We've been
> discussing CRCs for years, so assembling the puzzle seems much
> easier, when all the parts are available.
Well, double-write has been mentioned on the lists for years,
sometimes in conjunction with CRCs, and I get the impression this is
one of those things which has been worked on out of the community's
view for a while and is just being posted now. That's often not
viewed as the ideal way for development to proceed from a community
standpoint, but it's been done before with some degree of success --
particularly when a feature has been bikeshedded to a standstill.
> I would suggest you examine how to have an array of N bgwriters,
> then just slot the code for hinting into the bgwriter. That way a
> bgwriter can set hints, calc CRC and write pages in sequence on a
> particular block. The hinting needs to be synchronised with the
> writing to give good benefit.
I'll think about that. I see pros and cons, and I'll have to see
how those balance out after I mull them over.
> If we want page checksums in 9.2, I'll need your help, so the
> hinting may be a sidetrack.
Well, VMware posted the initial patch, and that was the first I
heard of it. I just had some off-line discussions with them after
they posted it. Perhaps the engineers who wrote it should take your
comments as a review an post a modified patch? It didn't seem like
that pot of broth needed any more cooks, so I was going to go work
on a nice dessert; but I agree that any way I can help along the
either of the $Subject patches should take priority.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson||Date: 2011-12-22 22:44:34|
|Subject: Re: Typed hstore proposal|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-12-22 22:04:03|
|Subject: Re: atexit vs. on_exit |