| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |
| Date: | 2013-04-09 07:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1365493063.7580.3242.camel@sussancws0025 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 16:44 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think we can just make up the rule that changing full page writes also
> requires SpinLockAcquire(&xlogctl->info_lck);. Then its easy enough. And
> it can hardly be a performance bottleneck given how infrequently its
> modified.
That seems like a good idea to me. As it stands, checksums basically
force full page writes to be on; so we should either fix that or
document it.
> In retrospect I think making up the rule that full_page_writes changes
> imply a checkpoint would have made things easier performance and
> codewise.
I don't even see why we allow changing that while the server is on.
Either the I/O system requires it for safety or not, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ants Aasma | 2013-04-09 07:39:35 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-04-09 07:36:55 | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |