Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
От | Qingqing Zhou |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | da2mjv$7hd$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
""Magnus Hagander"" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes > > FWIW, MSSQL deals with this using "Torn Page Detection". This is off by > default (no check at all!), but can be abled on a per-database level. > Note that it only *detects* torn pages. If it finds one, it won't start > and tell you to recover from backup. It can't automatically recover. I > would assume this greatly decreases the amount of data you have to > save... > After reading the long discussion on torn page detection and many related issues in doc/TODO.details/wal, I believe we need carefully analysis what the sequence of a partial write. case 1: if a partial write just write some sectors of a 8K page, then it is ok - assuming we will replay xlog in any ways without comparing page header LSN and xlog LSN (currently we do not do so); case 2: if a patial write destroied some old data of a page, which are not in our xlog, we will worry about this; So the main issue is case2. If OS could schedule atomic sector-wise write , so case2 could never happen? Regards, Qingqing
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: