Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-02 16:43:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
> How does your current "write" strategy handle this situation.  I mean,
> how do you currently guarnetee that between when you call write() and
> the kernel copies the buffer internally, no hint-bit are updated?

Working on the exact double-buffering technique now.

> #define write(fd, buf, count) buffer_crc_write(fd, buf, count)

I certainly wouldn't interpose the write() call itself; that's just
asking for trouble.

> whatever protection you have on the regular write is sufficient.  The
> time of the protection will need to start before the "buffer" period
> instead of just the write, (and maybe not the write syscall anymore) but
> with CPU caches and speed, the buffer period should be <= the time of
> the write() syscall...  Your fsync is your "on disk guarentee", not the
> write, and that won't change.


> But I thought you didn't really care about hint-bit updates, even in the
> current strategy... but I'm fully ignorant about the code, sorry...

The current implementation does not take it into account.

Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2008-10-02 16:51:01
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Joshua DrakeDate: 2008-10-02 16:13:38
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group