| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-11-12 10:13:43 |
| Message-ID: | 50A0CBD7.8070906@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/2012 10:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> That'll make it hard for VACUUM, hint-bit setting, etc to
> opportunistically checksum pages whenever they're doing a page write anyway.
It *is* a hard problem, yes. And the single bit doesn't really solve it.
So I'm arguing against opportunistically checksumming in general. Who
needs that anyway?
> Is it absurd to suggest using another bitmap, like the FSM or visibility
> map, to store information on page checksumming while checksumming is
> enabled but incomplete?
Not absurd. But arguably inefficient, because that bitmap may well
become a bottleneck itself. Plus there's the problem of making sure
those pages are safe against corruptions, so you'd need to checksum the
checksum bitmap... doesn't sound like a nice solution to me.
This has certainly been discussed before.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Asif Rehman | 2012-11-12 13:50:49 | Re: why can't plpgsql return a row-expression? |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-11-12 10:07:07 | Re: Identity projection |