Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-02 16:51:01
Message-ID: 20081002165101.GZ16893@yugib.highrise.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> [081002 12:43]:

> > #define write(fd, buf, count) buffer_crc_write(fd, buf, count)
>
> I certainly wouldn't interpose the write() call itself; that's just
> asking for trouble.

Of course not, that was only to show that whatever you currenlty pritect
"write()" with, is valid for protecting the buffer+write.

> > But I thought you didn't really care about hint-bit updates, even in the
> > current strategy... but I'm fully ignorant about the code, sorry...
>
> The current implementation does not take it into account.

So if PG currently doesn't care about the hit-bits being updated, during
the write, then why should introducing a double-buffer introduce the a
torn-page problem Tom mentions? I admit, I'm fishing for information
from those in the know, because I haven't been looking at the code long
enough (or all of it enough) to to know all the ins-and-outs...

a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-10-02 16:59:45 Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-10-02 16:43:05 Re: Block-level CRC checks