Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8008.1371215295@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes: > Well, time will tell I guess. The biggest overhead with the checksums is > exactly the WAL-logging of hint bits. Refresh my memory as to why we need to WAL-log hints for checksumming? I just had my nose in the part of the checksum patch that tediously copies entire pages out of shared buffers to avoid possible instability of the hint bits while we checksum and write the page. Given that we're paying that cost, I don't see why we'd need to do any extra WAL-logging (above and beyond the log-when-freeze cost that we have to pay already). But I've not absorbed any caffeine yet today, so maybe I'm just missing it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: