Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

From: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
To: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)
Date: 2018-08-29 11:37:49
Message-ID: 20180829113748.GC22768@nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 08:33:43PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:28:33 +0200
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > > On 27 Aug 2018, at 14:05, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:34:12 +0200
> > > Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:53:36PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:01:09 +0200
> > >>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>>> I'm curious about this option:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -r RELFILENODE check only relation with specified relfilenode
> > >>>>
> > >>>> but there is no facility to specify a database.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, referring to the relfilenode of a mapped relation seems a bit
> > >>>> inaccurate.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maybe reframing this in terms of the file name of the file you want
> > >>>> checked would be better?
> > >>>
> > >>> If we specified 1234 to -r option, pg_verify_shceksums checks not only 1234
> > >>> but also 1234_vm, 1234_fsm, and 1234.1, 1234.2, ... and so on, so I think
> > >>> it makes senses to allow to specify a relfilenode instead of a file name.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it is reasonable to add a option to specify a database, although
> > >>> I don't know which character is good because both -d and -D are already used....
> > >>
> > >> Maybe the -d (debug) option should be revisited as well. Mentioning
> > >> every scanned block generates a huge amount of output which might be
> > >> useful during development but does not seem very useful for a stable
> > >> release. AFAICT there is no other debug output for now.
> > >>
> > >> So it could be renamed to -v (verbose) and only mention each scanned
> > >> file, e.g. (errors/checksum mismatches are still reported of course).

I still think this should be changed as well, i.e. -v should not report
every block scanned, as that really is debug output and IMO not useful
in general? AFAICT your page does not change the output at all, just
renames the option.

Michael

--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer

Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2018-08-29 11:38:56 Re: Two proposed modifications to the PostgreSQL FDW
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2018-08-29 11:35:40 Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows