| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-02 20:13:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20081002201349.GG4151@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 October 2008 10:27:52 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Your optimism is showing ;-). XLogInsert routinely shows up as a major
> > CPU hog in any update-intensive test, and AFAICT that's mostly from the
> > CRC calculation for WAL records.
>
> Yeah... for those who run on filesystems that do checksumming for you, I'd bet
> they'd much rather see time spent in turning that off rather than
> checksumming everything else. (just guessing)
I don't think it can be turned off, because ISTR a failed checksum is
used to detect end of the WAL stream to be recovered.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-02 20:18:12 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-10-02 19:37:01 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |