Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1120847715.3940.344.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Having raised that objection, ISTM that checking for torn pages can be > > accomplished reasonably well using a few rules... > > I have zero confidence in this; the fact that you can think of > (incomplete, inaccurate) heuristics for heap-page operations doesn't > mean you can make it work for indexes. If we can find heuristics that cover some common cases, then I would be happy. Anything that allows us to prove that we don't need to recover is good. If we reduce the unknown state to an acceptable risk, then we are more likely to make use of the performance gain in the real world. Of course, they need to be accurate. Let's not get hung up on my error rate. I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: