Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, david@fetter.org, aidan@highrise.ca, stark@mit.edu, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2012-01-06T20:49:37Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Wakeup WALWriter as needed for asynchronous commit performance.
- 4de82f7d7c50 9.2.0 cited

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, but I'd rather see us commit a checksum patch that sometimes
> carries a major performance penalty and then work to reduce that
> penalty later than never commit anything at all.  I think it's
> unrealistic to assume we're going to get this perfectly right in one
> try.  I am not sure whether this particular patch is close enough for
> government work or still needs more hacking, and it may well be the
> latter, but there is no use holding our breath and waiting for
> absolute perfection.

Well said. My view completely.

I do want jam tomorrow, I just want bread and butter today as well.

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