On Wed, 9 May 2007, Jignesh Shah wrote:
But we still pay the penalty on WAL while writing them in the first place I
guess .. Is there an option to disable it.. I can test how much is the impact
I guess couple of %s but good to verify :-) )
on modern CPU's where the CPU is significantly faster then RAM,
calculating a checksum is free if the CPU has to touch the data anyway
(cycles where it would be waiting for a cache miss are spent doing the
calculations)
if you don't believe me, hack the source to remove the checksum and see if
you can measure any difference.
David Lang
>
Regards,
Jignesh
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jignesh Shah escribió:
> Now comes the thing that I am still exploring
> * Do we do checksum in WAL ? I guess we do .. Which means that we are
> now doing double checksumming on the data. One in ZFS and one in
> postgresql. ZFS does allow checksumming to be turned off (but on new
> blocks allocated). But of course the philosophy is where should it be
> done (ZFS or PostgreSQL).
>
Checksums on WAL are not optional in Postgres, because AFAIR they are
used to determine when it should stop recovering.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
