On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 18:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > These numbers are um, not impressive. Considering that a large fraction > of our WAL records are pretty short, the fact that slice8 consistently > loses at short buffer lengths is especially discouraging. Much of that > ground could be made up perhaps with tenser coding of the initialization > and finalization code, but it'd still not be worth taking any legal risk > for AFAICS.
It doesn't look good for SB8, does it? Nor for gcc4.1 either. Presumably Intel themselves will have some come-back, but I'm not sure what they'll so to so many conclusive tests. Instead, I'd like to include a parameter to turn off CRC altogether, for heavily CPU bound operations and the WAL drive on trustworthy hardware. wal_checksum = off -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
