Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
Zdenek Kotala escribió:
Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
Robert's code into the core.
Did this go anywhere?
I did not catch May commit fest :(. I plan to send cor
Zdenek Kotala escribió:
> Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
> check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
> Robert's code into the core.
Did this go anywhere?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 17:56 +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
Robert's code into the core.
I would like to make following modification:
1) Add Rea
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 17:56 +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
> check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
> Robert's code into the core.
>
> I would like to make following modification:
>
> 1) Add ReadBuffer_
Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would like to make following modification:
1) Add ReadBuffer_noerror (recommend me better name) function which will
accept damaged page without Error. This page will be marked as corrupted
and when ReadBuffer will touch this page th
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This seems like a pretty horrid idea. Bad pages shouldn't be allowed to
>>> get into shared buffers in the first place. Why not have the checking
>>> logic operate outside shared buffers?
>
"Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We're already assuming that; otherwise base backups for PITR
>> don't work.
> I think we could, but iirc we did not. We do not need that assumption if
> you don't
> turn off fullpage writes.
Oh, I had forgotten that RestoreBkpBlocks re
> >> This seems like a pretty horrid idea. Bad pages shouldn't be
allowed to
> >> get into shared buffers in the first place. Why not have the
checking
> >> logic operate outside shared buffers?
>
> > It currently works outside the shared buffers, but I afraid about
> > collision due to parall
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems like a pretty horrid idea. Bad pages shouldn't be allowed to
>> get into shared buffers in the first place. Why not have the checking
>> logic operate outside shared buffers?
> It currently works outside the shared buffers
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to make following modification:
> 1) Add ReadBuffer_noerror (recommend me better name) function which will
> accept damaged page without Error. This page will be marked as corrupted
> and when ReadBuffer will touch this page then it will b
Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
Robert's code into the core.
I would like to make following modification:
1) Add ReadBuffer_noerror (recommend me better name) function which will
accept damage
11 matches
Mail list logo
