On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> If double writes aren't going to give us anything "for free", >> maybe that's not the right place to be focusing our >> efforts... > > I'm not sure why it's not enough that they improve performance over > the alternative. Making some other feature with obvious overhead > "free" seems an odd requirement to hang on this. (Maybe I'm > misunderstanding you on that point?)
Well, this thread is nominally about checksums, but here we are talking about double writes, so I thought we were connecting those features in some way? Certainly, life is easier if we can develop them completely separately - but checksums really ought to come with some sort of solution to the problem of a torn-page with hint bit changes, IMO, and I thought that's why were thinking so hard about DW just now. Maybe I'm confused. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
