Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Date
Msg-id 8008.1371215295@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
> Well, time will tell I guess. The biggest overhead with the checksums is 
> exactly the WAL-logging of hint bits.

Refresh my memory as to why we need to WAL-log hints for checksumming?
I just had my nose in the part of the checksum patch that tediously
copies entire pages out of shared buffers to avoid possible instability
of the hint bits while we checksum and write the page.  Given that we're
paying that cost, I don't see why we'd need to do any extra WAL-logging
(above and beyond the log-when-freeze cost that we have to pay already).
But I've not absorbed any caffeine yet today, so maybe I'm just missing
it.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove useless USE_PGXS support in contrib
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: MD5 aggregate