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 | 14084.1120102382@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
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> 1. Offer a GUC to turn off full-page-image dumping, which you'd use only >> if you really trust your hardware :-( > Are these just WAL pages? Or database pages as well? Database pages. The current theory is that we can completely reconstruct from WAL data every page that's been modified since the last checkpoint. So the first write of any page after a checkpoint dumps a full image of the page into WAL; subsequent writes only write differences. This is nice and secure ... at least when you are using hardware that guarantees write ordering ... otherwise it's probably mostly useless overhead. Still, I'd not like to abandon the contract that if the disk does what it is supposed to do then we will do what we are supposed to. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: