| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Date: | 2007-01-11 16:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | 18867.1168533458@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> You understand wrong ... a tuple sitting on disk is normally read
>> directly from the shared buffer, and I don't think we want to pay for
>> copying it.
> "xlog records"
Oh, sorry, had the wrong context in mind. I'm still not very impressed
with the idea --- a CRC check will catch many kinds of problems, whereas
this approach catches exactly one kind of problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | markwkm | 2007-01-11 17:04:21 | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-01-11 16:25:28 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-01-11 17:06:11 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-01-11 16:25:28 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |