Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13991.1120101782@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Uh, what exactly did you cut out? I suggested dropping the dumping of >> full page images, but not removing CRCs altogether ... > Attached is the patch I used. OK, thanks for the clarification. So it does seem that dumping full page images is a pretty big hit these days. (In defense of the original idea, I believe it was not such a hit at the time --- but as we continue to improve performance, things that weren't originally at the top of the profile become significant.) It seems like we have two basic alternatives: 1. Offer a GUC to turn off full-page-image dumping, which you'd use only if you really trust your hardware :-( 2. Think of a better defense against partial-page writes. I like #2, or would if I could think of a better defense. Ideas anyone? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: