Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block-level CRC checks

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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...


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian WeimerDate: 2008-10-01 16:12:05
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Hitoshi HaradaDate: 2008-10-01 16:05:57
Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group