Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings,

* 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.

Thanks!

Stephen