Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > It could work that way, but I seriously doubt that a technique > only mentioned in dispatches one month before the last CF is > likely to become trustable code within one month. We've been > discussing CRCs for years, so assembling the puzzle seems much > easier, when all the parts are available. Well, double-write has been mentioned on the lists for years, sometimes in conjunction with CRCs, and I get the impression this is one of those things which has been worked on out of the community's view for a while and is just being posted now. That's often not viewed as the ideal way for development to proceed from a community standpoint, but it's been done before with some degree of success -- particularly when a feature has been bikeshedded to a standstill. ;-) > I would suggest you examine how to have an array of N bgwriters, > then just slot the code for hinting into the bgwriter. That way a > bgwriter can set hints, calc CRC and write pages in sequence on a > particular block. The hinting needs to be synchronised with the > writing to give good benefit. I'll think about that. I see pros and cons, and I'll have to see how those balance out after I mull them over. > If we want page checksums in 9.2, I'll need your help, so the > hinting may be a sidetrack. Well, VMware posted the initial patch, and that was the first I heard of it. I just had some off-line discussions with them after they posted it. Perhaps the engineers who wrote it should take your comments as a review an post a modified patch? It didn't seem like that pot of broth needed any more cooks, so I was going to go work on a nice dessert; but I agree that any way I can help along the either of the $Subject patches should take priority. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
