On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:10:38PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:06 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Having a CRC in WAL but not in the heap seems kind of pointless.
Yes...
If your
hardware is unreliable the corruption could anywhere.
Agreed.
I thought the point
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 23:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 22:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Ok, so when you need CRC's on a replicate (but not on the
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
COPY XLogInsert() #1 on oprofile results at 17% CPU
(full_page_writes = on)
But what portion of that is actually CRC-related? XLogInsert does quite
a lot.
Anyway, I can't see degrading the reliability of the system for a gain
in the
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
COPYXLogInsert() #1 on oprofile results at 17% CPU
(full_page_writes = on)
But what portion of that is actually CRC-related? XLogInsert does quite
a lot.
Anyway, I
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What did you think about protecting against torn writes using id numbers every
512 bytes.
Pretty much not happening; or are you volunteering to fix every part of
the system to tolerate injections of inserted data anywhere in a stored
datum?
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What did you think about protecting against torn writes using id numbers
every
512 bytes.
Pretty much not happening; or are you volunteering to fix every part of
the system to tolerate injections of inserted data
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pretty much not happening; or are you volunteering to fix every part of
the system to tolerate injections of inserted data anywhere in a stored
datum?
I was thinking to do it at a low level as the xlog records are
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pretty much not happening; or are you volunteering to fix every part of
the system to tolerate injections of inserted data anywhere in a stored
datum?
I was thinking to do it at a
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You understand wrong ... a tuple sitting on disk is normally read
directly from the shared buffer, and I don't think we want to pay for
copying it.
xlog records
Oh, sorry, had the wrong context in mind. I'm still
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, sorry, had the wrong context in mind. I'm still not very impressed
with the idea --- a CRC check will catch many kinds of problems, whereas
this approach catches exactly one kind of problem.
Well in fairness I tossed in a throwaway comment at the end
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:06 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Having a CRC in WAL but not in the heap seems kind of pointless.
Yes...
If your
hardware is unreliable the corruption could anywhere.
Agreed.
Other DBMS have one setting for the whole server; I've never seen
separate settings for WAL
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 22:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Ok, so when you need CRC's on a replicate (but not on the master) you
Which sounds to me like a good reason to
12 matches
Mail list logo
