|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|Cc:||Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Subject:||Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-01-09 07:07:17 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> There is still no documentation.
Michael, are you planning to address this? It'd also be useful to state
when you just don't agree with things / don't plan to address them.
Given the docs piece hasn't been addressed, and seems uncontroversial,
I'm marking this patch as returned with feedback. Please resubmit once
> > > Also, the full page is rewritten... would it make sense to only overwrite
> > > the checksum part itself?
> > So just writing the page header? I find that a bit scary and don't
> > expect much speedup as the OS would write the whole block anyway I
> > guess? I haven't touched that yet.
> Possibly the OS would write its block size, which is not necessary the same
> as postgres page size?
I think it'd be a bad idea to write more granular. Very commonly that'll
turn a write operation into a read-modify-write (although caching will
often prevent that from being a problem here), and it'll be bad for
flash translation layers.
|Next Message||Surafel Temesgen||2019-02-03 10:21:45||Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2019-02-03 10:14:39||Re: row filtering for logical replication|