Re: Online checksums verification in the backend - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Date
Msg-id 20201028050852.GF28445@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Online checksums verification in the backend  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: Online checksums verification in the backend
Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:47:19PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I think it's also worth noting that the IOLock is now acquired just
> before getting the buffer state, and released after the read (or after
> finding that the buffer is dirty).  This is consistent with how it's
> done elsewhere, so I'm fine.

Consistency is the point.  This API should be safe to use by design.
I have done some extra performance tests similar to what I did
upthread, and this version showed similar numbers.

> Other than that I'm quite happy with the changes you made, thanks a lot!

Thanks for confirming.  I have gone through the whole set today,
splitted the thing into two commits and applied them.  We had
buildfarm member florican complain about a mistake in one of the
GetDatum() calls that I took care of already, and there is nothing
else on my radar.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yugo NAGATA
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add important info about ANALYZE after create Functional Index