Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Дата
Msg-id 20170124025138.cdwea7aqcjquiifk@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2017-01-23 21:40:53 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but with checksums enabled, a hint
> bit update is going to dirty the page (and we're going to write it into
> the WAL and write it out to the heap), no?

No.  We only WAL log hint bits the first time a page is modified after a
checkpoint.  It's quite likely that you'll set hint bits in the same
checkpoint cycle as the row has been modified last (necessating the hint
bit change).  So we can't just pessimize this.

I'm a bit confused about the amount of technically wrong arguments in
this thread.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Следующее
От: Merlin Moncure
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?