On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
