Re: Block-level CRC checks
От | Aidan Van Dyk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20081002165101.GZ16893@yugib.highrise.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Block-level CRC checks ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Block-level CRC checks
Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com> [081002 12:43]: > > #define write(fd, buf, count) buffer_crc_write(fd, buf, count) > > I certainly wouldn't interpose the write() call itself; that's just > asking for trouble. Of course not, that was only to show that whatever you currenlty pritect "write()" with, is valid for protecting the buffer+write. > > But I thought you didn't really care about hint-bit updates, even in the > > current strategy... but I'm fully ignorant about the code, sorry... > > The current implementation does not take it into account. So if PG currently doesn't care about the hit-bits being updated, during the write, then why should introducing a double-buffer introduce the a torn-page problem Tom mentions? I admit, I'm fishing for information from those in the know, because I haven't been looking at the code long enough (or all of it enough) to to know all the ins-and-outs... a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: