Re: Block-level CRC checks
От | Decibel! |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 025DDAC5-8EB7-4164-B78A-02B9E379E341@decibel.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Block-level CRC checks (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Block-level CRC checks
Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I have to admit I don't remember exactly how it worked :-) I think > the > idea was avoiding setting the page dirty until a certain number of > hint > bit setting operations had been done (which I think means it's not > useful for the present purpose). Well, it would be useful if whenever we magically decided it was time to write out a page that had only hint-bit updates we generated WAL, right? Even if it was just a no-op WAL record to ensure we had the page image in the WAL. BTW, speaking of torn pages... I've heard that there's some serious gains to be had by turning full_page_writes to off, but I've never even dreamed of doing that because I've never seen any real sure-fire way to check that your hardware can't write torn pages. But if we have checksums enabled and checked the checksums on a block the first time we touched it during recovery, we'd be able to detect torn pages, yet still recover. That would help show that torn pages aren't possible in a particular environment (though unfortunately I don't think there's any way to actually prove that they're not). -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: