On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 18:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> These numbers are um, not impressive. Considering that a large fraction
> of our WAL records are pretty short, the fact that slice8 consistently
> loses at short buffer lengths is especially discouraging. Much of that
> ground could be made up perhaps with tenser coding of the initialization
> and finalization code, but it'd still not be worth taking any legal risk
> for AFAICS.
It doesn't look good for SB8, does it? Nor for gcc4.1 either.
Presumably Intel themselves will have some come-back, but I'm not sure
what they'll so to so many conclusive tests.
Instead, I'd like to include a parameter to turn off CRC altogether, for
heavily CPU bound operations and the WAL drive on trustworthy hardware.
wal_checksum = off
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
