Re: Proposal: Integrity check

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Mach <mach(dot)robert(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Integrity check
Date: 2008-01-25 22:13:52
Message-ID: 1201299232.4257.528.camel@ebony.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 17:56 +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Regarding to Robert Mach's work during Google SOC on data integrity
> check. I would like to improve storage module and implement some
> Robert's code into the core.
>
> I would like to make following modification:
>
> 1) Add ReadBuffer_noerror (recommend me better name) function which will
> accept damaged page without Error. This page will be marked as corrupted
> and when ReadBuffer will touch this page then it will be handled in
> standard way.
>
> This is important for check and repair functions to process all table
> without interruption.

We shouldn't let duff data into shared buffers at all.

I think you could mix the two methods of reading buffers

- start a subtransaction
- read blocks into shared buffers
- if error, then re-read block into private memory and examine
- carry on thru table in a new subtransaction

OK with other points, except I don't want a new command. Let's do it as
a function that can accept block ranges to check, not just whole tables.
e.g. pg_check_blocks(17, 43) would check blocks 17 -> 43

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-25 23:00:41 Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts about bug #3883
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-25 21:16:25 Re: Thoughts about bug #3883