| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-11-12 14:28:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20081112142815.GD4535@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > However, your idea suggests something else that we could do to improve
> > the patch: skip the ItemId->lp_flags during the CRC calculation. This
> > would mean we wouldn't need to WAL-log those.
>
> What!? In most cases those bits are critical data, not hints.
In most cases; but LP_DEAD is used as a hint sometimes which is causing
me some grief ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-12 14:32:19 | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-11-12 14:16:09 | Window functions review |