Re: Online checksums verification in the backend

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Date: 2020-11-02 07:29:37
Message-ID: 20201102072937.GC15770@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 05:50:06PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-11-02 10:45:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On 2020-11-02 10:05:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > > There is no place doing that on HEAD.
> > >
> > > Err?
> > > How is this not doing IO while holding a buffer mapping lock?
> >
> > Well, other than the one we are discussing of course :)
>
> I am not following? Were you just confirming that its not a thing we do?

I meant that this is not done in any place other than the one
introduced by c780a7a. So we have one place where it happens, and
no places before c780a7a.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2020-11-02 07:34:28 Reduce the number of special cases to build contrib modules on windows
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2020-11-02 07:10:09 Re: Parallel copy