From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |
Date: | 2013-04-05 13:09:11 |
Message-ID: | 20130405130911.GM2415@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-04-04 17:39:16 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 22:39 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think its really slower. Earlier the code took WalInsertLock
> > everytime, even if we ended up not logging anything. Thats far more
> > epensive than a single spinlock. And the copy should also only be taken
> > in the case we need to log. So I think we end up ahead of the current
> > state.
>
> Good point.
>
> > > The code looks good to me except that we should be consistent about the
> > > page hole -- XLogCheckBuffer is calculating it, but then we copy the
> > > entire page. I don't think anything can change the size of the page hole
> > > while we have a shared lock on the buffer, so it seems OK to skip the
> > > page hole during the copy.
> >
> > I don't think it can change either, but I doubt that there's a
> > performance advantage by not copying the hole. I'd guess the simpler
> > code ends up faster.
>
> I was thinking more about the WAL size, but I don't have a strong
> opinion.
I was just a bit dense. No idea what I missed there.
How does the attached version look? I verified that it survives
recovery, but not more.
Jeff, any chance you can run this for a round with your suite?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-checksums-Log-hint-bit-writes-in-a-concurrency-safe-.patch | text/x-patch | 12.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-04-05 13:20:12 | Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-04-05 12:08:24 | Re: Hash Join cost estimates |