Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-02-18 16:42:37
Message-ID: 20190218164237.GA7617@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Feb-18, Bernd Helmle wrote:

> Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> > we
> > > can skip it if not?
> >
> > Yeah - new patch attached.
> Maybe i'm wrong, but my thought is that this breaks the SIGUSR1
> business, since there seems no code path which calculates total_size in
> this case?

Oh, yeah, it does. In that case, a comment explaining that is needed.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2019-02-18 16:44:50 Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-02-18 16:36:50 Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line