| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20190304030941.GG1999@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
--
Michael
| 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 |