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/
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
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
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
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 restores
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 be
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
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 parallel read and
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, but I
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?
It currently
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
