Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adds the new pg_shdescription to the list of shared system catalogs on
> the reindex page.
Good catch --- added.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill
Adds the new pg_shdescription to the list of shared system catalogs on
the reindex page.
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/reindex.sgml
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/reindex.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.34
diff -c -r1.3
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, does this mean that each WAL entry gets its own checksum?
Right.
> (I had assumed that PostgreSQLs WAL checksumming was justified by the
> partial write issue. The wild store could easily occur with a heap
> page, too, and AFAIK, tuples, aren't ch
* Tom Lane:
> I think short burst errors are fairly likely: the kind of scenario I'm
> worried about is a wild store corrupting a word of a WAL entry while
> it's waiting around to be written in the WAL buffers.
Ah, does this mean that each WAL entry gets its own checksum? In this
case, Adler32
Hi All,
Please find attached the latest version of the patch attached. It
is based on REL8_2_STABLE.
It includes a few bug fixes and an improvement to the size
estimation function. It also includes a work-around to circumvent the
problem we were facing earlier in xact.c; it now fakes itself
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane:
>> There's a lot of math behind CRCs but AFAIR Adler's method is pretty
>> much ad-hoc.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main reason for the WAL CRC is to
> detect partial WAL writes (due to improper caching, for instance).
Well, that's *
* Tom Lane:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
>
> Is anything known about the error detection capabilities of Adler32?
> There's a lot of math behind CRCs but AFAIR Adler's method is pretty
> much ad-hoc.
Correct me if I'm wrong,
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting wikipedia:
> "Adler-32 has a weakness for short messages with few hundred bytes,
> because the checksums for these messages have a poor coverage of
> the 32 available bits...Jonathan Stone discovered in 2001 that Adler-32
> has a weakness...An exte
Tom Lane wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
>
> Is anything known about the error detection capabilities of Adler32?
> There's a lot of math behind CRCs but AFAIR Adler's method is pretty
> much ad-hoc.
As I understand it,
Sorry, Im not an expert, and I have the same win 2003 server installation
problem, but dont know what to do with the tree .c files downloaded as a
patch, can you please direct me on how to use the patch?
Thanks !
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>
> 1. a patch is generated by the program "diff"
> 2
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oneliner that adds the capability to deal with defines that set string
> values - " needs to be quoted in XML.
Applied, thanks.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "It works most of the time" doesn't exactly satisfy me.
>
> > It seemed safer to allow a very rare error through to the next level of
> > error
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "It works most of the time" doesn't exactly satisfy me.
> It seemed safer to allow a very rare error through to the next level of
> error checking rather than to close the door so tight that recovery
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
Is anything known about the error detection capabilities of Adler32?
There's a lot of math behind CRCs but AFAIR Adler's method is pretty
much ad-hoc.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 17:58 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Simon Riggs:
>
> >> Surely not. Otherwise even the "on" setting is not really a defense.
> >
> > Only when the CRC is exactly zero, which happens very very rarely.
>
> Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
No. Please e
* Simon Riggs:
>> Surely not. Otherwise even the "on" setting is not really a defense.
>
> Only when the CRC is exactly zero, which happens very very rarely.
Have you tried switching to Adler32 instead of CRC32?
--
Florian Weimer<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 10:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Recovery can occur with/without same setting of wal_checksum, to avoid
> >>> complications from
In response to Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Might be more robust to say
> >>> if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
>
> > I specified in the GUC config that minimum allowable value is -1.
>
> I'd still tend to go
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/resposible/responsible/
Somebody seems to have caught that already.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A few assorted typos and grammar corrections I caught while skimming source
Applied, thanks.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free sp
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 10:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Recovery can occur with/without same setting of wal_checksum, to avoid
>>> complications from crashes immediately after turning GUC on.
>>
>> Surely not.
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 10:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In this thread, I outlined an idea for reducing cost of WAL CRC checking
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-10/msg01299.php
> > wal_checksum = on (default) | off
>
> This still see
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this thread, I outlined an idea for reducing cost of WAL CRC checking
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-10/msg01299.php
> wal_checksum = on (default) | off
This still seems awfully dangerous to me.
> Recovery can occur with/without
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Might be more robust to say
>>> if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
> I specified in the GUC config that minimum allowable value is -1.
I'd still tend to go with Andrew's suggestion because it makes this
particular bit
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Bill Moran wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
+ if (trace_temp_files != -1)
Might be more robust to say
if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
In this thread, I outlined an idea for reducing cost of WAL CRC checking
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-10/msg01299.php
wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Recovery can occur with/without same setting of wal_checksum, to avoid
complications from crashes immediately after turning
In response to "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Moran wrote:
> >> > +if (trace_temp_files != -1)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Might be more robust to say
> >>
> >> if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
> >
> > Becau
Gregory,
You missed one in the first sentence you fixed:
! * if its needed. In case of *cleaned!=NULL caller is resposible to
s/resposible/responsible/
Regards,
--
Guillaume
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL
A few assorted typos and grammar corrections I caught while skimming source
Index: src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -c -r1.7 g
29 matches
Mail list logo
