|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017-03-06 20:40:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I'm ok with not immediately doing so, but I think Peter's design isn't
> > in line with achieving something like this.
> I would be okay with doing this if we had a grab-bag of expensive
> checks, that all pretty much require some combination of
> ExclusiveLocks and/or ShareLocks anyway, and are amenable to being
> combined. I could see that happening, but we're a long way off from
> that. When it does happen, we might have other things that are a bit
> like bt_index_parent_check(), in terms of locking requirements and
> degree of thoroughness, that might themselves require other parameters
> specific to the verification that they perform that we cannot
> anticipate. For example, maybe bt_index_parent_check() could have a
> parameter that is a probability that any given IndexTuple will be
> verified against its heap tuple. Then you could have something like a
> PRNG seed argument, so you can check different tuples every day. There
> are many possibilities, and I hope that eventually amcheck has this
> kind of very rich functionality.
> When you use the interface you describe to "stack" several checks at
> once, less important parameters, like the ones I suggest are going to
> be an awkward fit, and so will probably be excluded. I'm not opposed
> to having what amounts to a second interface to what bt_index_check()
> does, to make this kind of thing work where it makes sense. Really,
> bt_index_parent_check() is almost an alternative interface to the same
> functionality today. There can be another one in the future, if it
> serves a purpose, and the locking requirements are roughly the same
> for all the checks. I'd be fine with that. Let's just get the basic
> feature in for now, though.
I disagree quite strongly with pretty much all of that.
But I also think it's more important to get some initial verification
functionality in, than resolving this conflict. I do, also quite
strongly, think we'll be better served with having something like what
you're proposing than nothing, and I don't have time/energy to turn your
patch into what I'm envisioning, nor necessarily the buyin. Hence I'm
planning to commit the current interface.
Attached is your original patch, and a patch editorializing things. I do
plan to merge those before pushing.
Who would you like to see added to Reviewed-By?
|Next Message||David G. Johnston||2017-03-09 23:57:01||Re: bytea_output vs make installcheck|
|Previous Message||Tels||2017-03-09 23:52:18||Re: Declarative partitioning optimization for large amount of partitions|