Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2019-03-02 16:08:16
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Michael Banck (michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de) wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 01.03.2019, 18:03 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:37 AM Michael Banck
> > <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> > > I have added a retry for this as well now, without a pg_sleep() as well.
> > > This catches around 80% of the half-reads, but a few slip through. At
> > > that point we bail out with exit(1), and the user can try again, which I
> > > think is fine?
> >
> > Maybe I'm confused here, but catching 80% of torn pages doesn't sound
> > robust at all.
> The chance that pg_verify_checksums hits a torn page (at least in my
> tests, see below) is already pretty low, a couple of times per 1000
> runs. Maybe 4 out 5 times, the page is read fine on retry and we march
> on. Otherwise, we now just issue a warning and skip the file (or so was
> the idea, see below), do you think that is not acceptable?
> I re-ran the tests (concurrent createdb/pgbench -i -s 50/dropdb and
> pg_verify_checksums in tight loops) with the current patch version, and
> I am seeing short reads very, very rarely (maybe every 1000th run) with
> a warning like:
> |1174
> |pg_verify_checksums: warning: could not read block 374 in file "data/base/18032/18045": read 4096 of 8192
> |pg_verify_checksums: warning: could not read block 375 in file "data/base/18032/18045": read 4096 of 8192
> |Files skipped: 2
> The 1174 is the sequence number, the first 1173 runs of
> pg_verify_checksums only skipped blocks.
> However, the fact it shows two warnings for the same file means there is
> something wrong here. It was continueing to the next block while I think
> it should just skip to the next file on read failures. So I have changed
> that now, new patch attached.

I'm confused- if previously it was continueing to the next block instead
of doing the re-read on the same block, why don't we just change it to
do the re-read on the same block properly and see if that fixes the
retry, instead of just giving up and skipping..? I'm not necessairly
against skipping to the next file, to be clear, but I think I'd be
happier if we kept reading the file until we actually get EOF.

(I've not looked at the actual patch, just read what you wrote..)



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-02 16:25:39 Re: NOT IN subquery optimization
Previous Message Perumal Raj 2019-03-02 14:23:25 Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X