From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP checksums patch |
Date: | 2012-11-14 22:28:09 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yRFE7hR4jbV+s3Z0knpf3AZNCnmGMKACxs_J1BBnUQqw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 01, 2012 11:11 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 18:14 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > You are missing large parts of the previous thread, giving various
>> > opinions on what the UI should look like for enabling checksums.
>>
>> I read through all of the discussion that I could find. There was quite
>> a lot, so perhaps I have forgotten pieces of it.
>>
>> But that one section in the docs does look out of date and/or confusing
>> to me.
>>
>> I remember there was discussion about a way to ensure that checksums are
>> set cluster-wide with some kind of special command (perhaps related to
>> VACUUM) and a magic file to let recovery know whether checksums are set
>> everywhere or not. That doesn't necessarily conflict with the GUC though
>> (the GUC could be a way to write checksums lazily, while this new
>> command could be a way to write checksums eagerly).
>>
>> If some consensus was reached on the exact user interface, can you
>> please send me a link?
>
> AFAICT complete consensus has not been reached but one of the discussions can be found on below link:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg00279.php
> Here Robert has given suggestions and then further there is more discussion based on that points.
>
> According to me, the main points where more work for this patch is required as per previous discussions is as follows:
>
> 1. Performance impact of WAL log for hint-bits needs to be verified for scenario's other than pg_bench (Such as bulk data load (which I
> feel there is some way to optimize, but I don't know if that’s part of this patch)).
Atri has a patch posted which (if it passes muster) would eliminate
the i/o impact of WAL logging hint bits following a bulk load or any
scenario where many pages worth of tuples were sequentially written
out with the same XID. Atri's patch was written with the checksum
patch in mind.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-11-14 22:32:12 | pgsql: In pg_upgrade, copy fsm, vm, and extent files by checking for fi |
Previous Message | Xi Wang | 2012-11-14 22:08:52 | Re: [PATCH] Fix INT_MIN % -1 overflow in int8mod(). |