| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2018-04-10 23:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20180410234434.GG26769@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:40:58PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I agree with Michael -- shutting down the server using immediate mode
> could lead to torn pages, that crash recovery will need to repair at a
> later stage. I think that some strong caveats around this are required
> in the pg_verify_checksums docs, at a minimum.
Peter, the code does the right thing as it requires the instance's
control file state to be either DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY or
DB_SHUTDOWNED. The documentation, on the contrary, implies that
the instance just needs to be offline, which can be anything as long as
the postmaster is stopped. That's how I understand the current
wording.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Huong Dangminh | 2018-04-10 23:46:49 | RE: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow" |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-04-10 22:24:55 | Re: lazy detoasting |