Re: Enabling Checksums

On 25 January 2013 20:29, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> The checksums patch also introduces another behavior into
>> SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave, which is to write an XLOG_HINT WAL record
>> if checksums are enabled (to avoid torn page hazards). That's only
>> necessary for changes where the caller does not write WAL itself and
>> doesn't bump the LSN of the data page. (There's a reason the caller
>> can't easily write the XLOG_HINT WAL itself.) So, we could introduce
>> another flag "needsWAL" that would control whether we write the
>> XLOG_HINT WAL or not (only applies with checksums on, of course).
>
> I thought Simon had the idea, at some stage, of writing a WAL record
> to cover hint-bit changes only at the time we *write* the buffer and
> only if no FPI had already been emitted that checkpoint cycle. I'm
> not sure whether that approach was sound, but if so it seems more
> efficient than this approach.

The requirement is that we ensure that a FPI is written to WAL before
any changes to the block are made.

The patch does that by inserting an XLOG_HINT_WAL record when we set a
hint. The insert is a no-op if we've already written the FPI in this
checkpoint cycle and we don't even reach there except when dirtying a
clean data block.

If we attempted to defer the FPI last thing before write, we'd need to
cope with the case that writes at checkpoint occur after the logical
start of the checkpoint, and also with the overhead of additional
writes at checkpoint time.

I don't see any advantage in deferring the FPI, but I do see
disadvantage in complicating this.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services