Re: Online checksums verification in the backend

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Дата
Msg-id 20201028050852.GF28445@paquier.xyz
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Online checksums verification in the backend  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Ответы RE: Online checksums verification in the backend  ("Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan A&PS Delivery)" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>)
Re: Online checksums verification in the backend  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:47:19PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I think it's also worth noting that the IOLock is now acquired just
> before getting the buffer state, and released after the read (or after
> finding that the buffer is dirty).  This is consistent with how it's
> done elsewhere, so I'm fine.

Consistency is the point.  This API should be safe to use by design.
I have done some extra performance tests similar to what I did
upthread, and this version showed similar numbers.

> Other than that I'm quite happy with the changes you made, thanks a lot!

Thanks for confirming.  I have gone through the whole set today,
splitted the thing into two commits and applied them.  We had
buildfarm member florican complain about a mistake in one of the
GetDatum() calls that I took care of already, and there is nothing
else on my radar.
--
Michael

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Yugo NAGATA
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add important info about ANALYZE after create Functional Index