"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Your optimism is showing ;-). XLogInsert routinely shows up as a major
>> CPU hog in any update-intensive test, and AFAICT that's mostly from the
>> CRC calculation for WAL records.
> I probably wouldn't compare checksumming *every* WAL record to a
> single block-level checksum.
No, not at all. Block-level checksums would be an order of magnitude
more expensive: they're on bigger chunks of data and they'd be done more
often.
regards, tom lane
