Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 3070.1120708893@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, I added #1 yesterday as 'full_page_writes', and it has the same
>> warnings as fsync (namely, on crash, be prepared to recovery or check
>> your system thoroughly.

> Yes, which is why I comment now that the GUC alone is not enough.

> There is no way to "check your system thoroughly". If there is a certain
> way of knowing torn pages had *not* occurred, then I would be happy.

I agree with Simon that this isn't much of a solution: no one who cares
about their data will dare turn off the option, and therefore the
possible performance gain is just hot air.

I do not see a better alternative at the moment :-( but we should keep
thinking about it.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: PQescapeIdentifier
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC