| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-01 15:58:42 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920810010858t382bed15n3f7247710c6dcef@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> No, not at all. Block-level checksums would be an order of magnitude
>> more expensive: they're on bigger chunks of data and they'd be done more
>> often.
>
> More often? My intention is that they are checked when the buffer is
> read in, and calculated/stored when the buffer is written out.
> In-memory changers of the block do not check nor recalculate the sum.
>
> Is this not OK?
That is the way it should work, only on read-in/write-out.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Schlie | 2008-10-01 16:02:35 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-10-01 15:57:50 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |