On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 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?
From nearly 4 years ago.
http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008/02/reworking-wal-locking/145qrhllcqeqlfzntvn7kjefijey
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
