Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <bernd(dot)helmle(at)credativ(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-02-18 03:24:35
Message-ID: 20190218032435.GC15532@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well, pg_rewind is also using kB, so should I switch it back to that?

I am not sure which one is better, sorry :)

There is an argument for switching pg_rewind to use MB as well. I
don't expect pg_rewind to transfer gigs of data, but it could make the
maths harder for a newcomer if it transfers a lot of data.

> It looks like the progress reporting is otherwise quite similar, so what
> exactly did you have in mind?

I was thinking about a routine in src/common/ or such at this time.
The tools have separate goals though, so it looks sensible as well to
keep two routines. I am fine to let that up to you.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-18 03:36:48 Re: BUG #15548: Unaccent does not remove combining diacritical characters
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-18 03:19:54 Re: allow online change primary_conninfo