| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-01 20:16:13 |
| Message-ID: | 28254.1222892173@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> One possibility would be to "double-buffer" the write... i.e. as you
> calculate your CRC, you're doing it on a local copy of the block, which
> you hand to the OS to write... If you're touching the whole block of
> memory to CRC it, it isn't *ridiculously* more expensive to copy the
> memory somewhere else as you do it...
That actually seems like a really good idea. We don't have to increase
the buffer locking requirements, or make much of any change at all in
the existing logic. +1, especially if this is intended to be an
optional feature (which I agree with).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Brakhane | 2008-10-01 21:20:47 | Re: Transactions within a function body |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-01 20:10:35 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |