| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "P(dot)J(dot) \"Josh\" Rovero" <rovero(at)sonalysts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| Date: | 2001-11-17 02:11:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200111170211.fAH2BOT16046@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Is it because we take a snapshot of the page before we write it in case
> > we only write part of the page?
>
> AFAIR, the partial-page-write problem is the entire reason for doing it.
> If we could be certain that writes to datafile pages were atomic, we'd
> not need this.
>
> Of course we can't be certain of that. But I'm wondering if there isn't
> a cheaper solution.
Could we add code to detect a partial write when we recover from one
using WAL so we can know if these partial writes are ever
happening?
I am with you on this. There has to be a better way.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:15:20 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:07:54 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:15:20 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:07:54 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |