| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "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 18:04:56 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920810021104t32a3ff3by1d616961272d1c46@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> How about when a hint bit is set and the page is not already dirty, set
> the checksum to the "always valid" value? The problem I have with this
> idea is that there would be lots of pages excluded from the CRC checks,
> a non-trivial percentage of the time.
I don't like that because it trades-off corruption detection (the
whole point of this feature) for a slight performance improvement.
> Maybe we could mix this with Simon's approach to counting hint bit
> setting, and calculate a valid CRC on the page every n-th non-logged
> change.
I still think we should only calculate checksums on the actual write.
And, this still seems to have an issue with WAL, unless Simon's
original idea somehow included recording hint bit settings/dirtying
the page in WAL.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-10-02 18:10:34 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-02 18:01:22 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |