Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Дата
Msg-id 13991.1120101782@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
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  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
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:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Open items
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC