From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Date: | 2008-10-01 23:41:24 |
Message-ID: | 10407.1222904484@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> a) You wouldn't have to keep the lock while doing the I/O.
Hoo, yeah, so the period of holding the share-lock could well be
*shorter* than it is now. Most especially so if the write() blocks
instead of just transferring the data to kernel space and returning.
I wonder whether that could mean that it's a win to double-buffer
even if we aren't computing a checksum? Nah, probably not.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-10-02 00:17:40 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-10-01 23:29:21 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |