Re: AIO v2.5

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: AIO v2.5
Date: 2025-03-28 12:57:25
Message-ID: csuj2g67uexpmlkubzqmcipfm6ndvzn2d3ycij7plaz2uocnfa@4ja4bml2wz3r
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2025-03-28 08:54:42 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> One simplification that we could make is to only ever report one checksum
> failure for each IO, even if N buffers failed - after all that's what HEAD
> does (by virtue of throwing an error after the first). Then we'd not track the
> number of checksum errors.

Just after sending, I thought of another variation: Report the number of
*invalid* pages (which we already track) as checksum errors, if there was at
least on checksum error.

It's imo rather weird that we track checksum errors but we don't track invalid
page headers, despite the latter being an even worse indication of something
having gone wrong...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2025-03-28 13:00:21 Re: Improve monitoring of shared memory allocations
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-03-28 12:54:42 Re: AIO v2.5