Horton

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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: 2012-01-07T11:09:53Z
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 →

  1. Wakeup WALWriter as needed for asynchronous commit performance.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> So there isn't any problem with there being incorrect checksums on
> blocks and you can turn the parameter on and off as often and as
> easily as you want. I think it can be USERSET but I wouldn't want to
> encourage users to see turning it off as a performance tuning feature.
> If the admin turns it on for the server, its on, so its SIGHUP.
>
> Any holes in that I haven't noticed?

And of course, as soon as I wrote that I thought of the problem. We
mustn't make a write that hasn't been covered by a FPW, so we must
know ahead of time whether to WAL log hints or not. We can't simply
turn it on/off any longer, now that we have to WAL log hint bits also.
So thanks for making me think of that.

We *could* make it turn on/off at each checkpoint, but its easier just
to say that it can be turned on/off at server start.

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