| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-10-31 23:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQAMCV4d95wfXZXvam47dZagBo0haqB3KDrshaDe408_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier
>> - Instead of palloc'ing the old and new pages to compare, it would be
>> more performant to keep around two static buffers worth of BLCKSZ and
>> just use that. This way there is no need as well to perform any palloc
>> calls in the masking functions, limiting the risk of errors (those
>> code paths had better avoid errors IMO). It would be also less costly
>> to just pass to the masking function a pointer to a buffer of size
>> BLCKSZ and just do the masking on it.
>
> We always palloc buffers like this so that they will be aligned. But
> we could arrange not to repeat the palloc every time (see, e.g.,
> BootstrapXLOG()).
Yeah, we could go with that and there is clearly no reason to not do so.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-11-01 00:02:39 | WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2016-10-31 23:44:58 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |