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 27450.1120848343@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.

If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
acceptable to you at all.  We are talking about going from a system
that can actually survive torn-page cases to one that can only tell
you whether you've lost data to such a case.  Arguing about the
probability with which we can detect the loss seems beside the point.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Fixing domain input