Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 13991.1120101782@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Uh, what exactly did you cut out? I suggested dropping the dumping of
>> full page images, but not removing CRCs altogether ...
> Attached is the patch I used.
OK, thanks for the clarification. So it does seem that dumping full
page images is a pretty big hit these days. (In defense of the original
idea, I believe it was not such a hit at the time --- but as we continue
to improve performance, things that weren't originally at the top of the
profile become significant.)
It seems like we have two basic alternatives:
1. Offer a GUC to turn off full-page-image dumping, which you'd use only
if you really trust your hardware :-(
2. Think of a better defense against partial-page writes.
I like #2, or would if I could think of a better defense. Ideas anyone?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: