| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2008-10-01 16:07:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1222877225.13669.39.camel@PCD12478 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:57 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> I wonder if we could do something clever here though. Only one process
> is busy
> calculating the checksum -- it just has to know if anyone fiddles the hint
> bits while it's busy.
What if the hint bits are added at the very end to the checksum, with an
exclusive lock to them ? Then the exclusive lock should be short
enough... only it might be deadlock-prone as any lock upgrade...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Weimer | 2008-10-01 16:12:05 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2008-10-01 16:05:57 | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |