| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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 14:54:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1168527292.3951.545.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > COPY XLogInsert() #1 on oprofile results at 17% CPU
> > (full_page_writes = on)
>
> But what portion of that is actually CRC-related? XLogInsert does quite
> a lot.
>
> Anyway, I can't see degrading the reliability of the system for a gain
> in the range of a few percent, which is the most that we'd be likely
> to get here ... for a factor of two or more, maybe people would be
> willing to take a risk.
All I would add is that the loss of reliability was not certain in all
cases, otherwise I myself would have dropped the idea long ago. With the
spectre of doubt surrounding this, I'm happy to drop the idea until we
have proof/greater certainty either way.
Patch revoked.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-01-11 14:59:26 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-01-11 14:20:57 | contrib/xml2 and xml type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-01-11 14:59:26 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 14:01:09 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |