On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking at ways to make the memcpy() of the payload happen
>> without the lock, in parallel, and once you do that the record header CRC
>> calculation can be done in parallel, too. That makes it irrelevant from a
>> performance point of view whether the prev-link is included in the CRC or
>> not.
>
> Better plan. So we keep the prev link in the CRC.
>
> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any
> reason not to go with that?
Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
