Re: Block-level CRC checks
От | Zdenek Kotala |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4909D5BF.6060007@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Block-level CRC checks (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Block-level CRC checks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a): > Zdenek Kotala wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera napsal(a): >>> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>>> But perhaps writing a single WAL record if you scan whole page and set >>>> all bits at once. Then it makes sense in some cases. >>> So this is what I ended up doing; attached. >> Please, DO NOT MOVE position of page version in PageHeader structure! > > Hmm. The only way I see we could do that is to modify the checksum > struct member to a predefined value before calculating the page's > checksum. > > Ah, actually there's another alternative -- leave the checksum on its > current position (start of struct) and move other members below > pg_pagesize_version (leaning towards pd_tli and pd_flags). That'd leave > the page version in the same position. > > (Hmm, maybe it's better to move pd_lower and pd_upper?) No, please, keep pd_lower and pd_upper on same position. They are accessed more often than pd_tli and pd_flags. It is better for optimization. By the way, do you need CRC as a first page member? Is it for future development like CLOG integration into buffers? Why not put it on the end as and mark it as a special? It will reduce space requirement when CRC is not enabled. Zdenek -- Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: