Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2019-03-04 03:09:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 07:58:26AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum
> verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing. However
> it would have side effects, such as interfering deeply with the server page
> cache, which may or may not be desirable.

In what is that different from VACUUM or a sequential scan? It is
possible to use buffer ring replacement strategies in such cases using
the normal clock-sweep algorithm, so that scanning a range of pages
does not really impact Postgres shared buffer cache.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2019-03-04 03:10:53 Re: [HACKERS] EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-04 03:06:16 Re: Online verification of checksums