Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2019-03-18 05:47:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Tomas Vondra (tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> If we want to run it from the server itself, then I guess a background
> worker would be a better solution. Incidentally, that's something I've
> been toying with some time ago, see [1].

So, I'm a big fan of this idea of having a background worker that's
running and (slowly, maybe configurably) scanning through the data
directory checking for corrupted pages. I'd certainly prefer it if that
background worker didn't fault those pages into shared buffers though,
and I don't really think it should need to even check if a given page is
currently being written out or is presently in shared buffers.
Basically, I'd think it would work just fine to have it essentially do
what I am imagining pg_checksums to do, but as a background worker.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2019-03-18 05:52:14 Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2019-03-18 05:43:08 Re: Online verification of checksums