| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
| Date: | 2016-11-18 23:51:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQxR5TNVEQxob+fZr99x0_Z3QwM_8r0pDDeVAMdrjU=kQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hm, if we want that - and it doesn't seem like a bad idea - I think we
>> should be make it available without recompiling.
>
> I suppose, provided it doesn't let CORRUPTION elevel be < ERROR. That
> might be broken if it was allowed.
What do you think about new argument with default vs. GUC? I guess
that the GUC might be a lot less of a foot-gun. We might even give it
a suitably scary name, to indicate that it will make the server PANIC.
(I gather that you don't care about other aspects of verbosity -- just
about the ability to make amcheck PANIC in the event of an invariant
violation without recompiling it.)
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-11-19 00:07:31 | Re: Mail thread references in commits |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-11-18 23:42:15 | Re: patch: function xmltable |