| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-01 15:57:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20081001155731.GE3878@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I probably wouldn't compare checksumming *every* WAL record to a
> > single block-level checksum.
>
> No, not at all. Block-level checksums would be an order of magnitude
> more expensive: they're on bigger chunks of data and they'd be done more
> often.
More often? My intention is that they are checked when the buffer is
read in, and calculated/stored when the buffer is written out.
In-memory changers of the block do not check nor recalculate the sum.
Is this not OK?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-10-01 15:57:50 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-01 15:56:30 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |