| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2009-12-02 18:40:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1259779227.19446.9.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2009-12-01 at 19:41 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> > Also, it would
> > require reading back each page as it's written to disk, which is OK
> for
> > a bunch of single-row writes, but for bulk data loads a significant
> problem.
>
> Not sure what that really means for Postgres. It would just mean
> reading back the same page of memory from the filesystem cache that we
> just read.
Surely the file system ought to be the place where to solve this. After
all, we don't put link-level corruption detection into the libpq
protocol either.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-12-02 18:44:25 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-02 18:34:57 | Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks) |