Re: Enabling Checksums

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Date: 2013-04-08 08:16:40
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+0Rvpc4wynwjerNk-WfWqhJ-mwNics=MT7w5X4f0UzBQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6 April 2013 08:40, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:

> AFAICS that could be easily avoided by doing a simple PageGetLSN() like we
> used to, if checksums are not enabled. In XLogCheckBuffer:
>
> /*
>> * XXX We assume page LSN is first data on *every* page that can
>> be passed
>> * to XLogInsert, whether it otherwise has the standard page
>> layout or
>> * not. We don't need the buffer header lock for PageGetLSN
>> because we
>> * have exclusive lock on the page and/or the relation.
>> */
>> *lsn = BufferGetLSNAtomic(rdata->**buffer);
>>
>
> Also, the second sentence in the above comment is completely bogus now.

Both points addressed on separate commits.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-04-08 08:19:00 Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-04-08 08:11:30 Re: pgsql: Get rid of USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER dependency in trigram constructi