| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, stark(at)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 21:25:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobVny0M5GYUvbs3Kj0BH_BZrwdEFCZJivEkVJm9q5YHaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> If double writes aren't going to give us anything "for free",
>> maybe that's not the right place to be focusing our
>> efforts...
>
> I'm not sure why it's not enough that they improve performance over
> the alternative. Making some other feature with obvious overhead
> "free" seems an odd requirement to hang on this. (Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding you on that point?)
Well, this thread is nominally about checksums, but here we are
talking about double writes, so I thought we were connecting those
features in some way?
Certainly, life is easier if we can develop them completely separately
- but checksums really ought to come with some sort of solution to the
problem of a torn-page with hint bit changes, IMO, and I thought
that's why were thinking so hard about DW just now.
Maybe I'm confused.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-04 21:26:47 | Re: Regarding Checkpoint Redo Record |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-04 21:21:37 | Re: BUG #6379: SQL Function Causes Back-end Crash |