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

Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, david(at)fetter(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes
Date: 2011-12-28 00:06:19
Message-ID: 1325030779.11655.17.camel@jdavis (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 16:43 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > 3. Attack hint bits problem.
> A large number of problems would go away if the current hint bit
> system could be replaced with something that did not require writing
> to the tuple itself.

My point was that neither the zero page problem nor the upgrade problem
are solved by addressing the hint bits problem. They can be solved
independently, and in my opinion, it seems to make sense to solve those
problems before the hint bits problem (in the context of detecting
hardware corruption).

Of course, don't let that stop you from trying to get rid of hint bits,
that has numerous potential benefits.

	Jeff Davis

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2011-12-28 01:51:06
Subject: pgstat wait timeout
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-12-27 23:39:48
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group