Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2019-03-19 23:52:55
Message-ID: 20190319235255.GD3488@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:44:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> That's *PRECISELY* my point. I think it's a bad idea to do online
> checksumming from outside the backend. It needs to be inside the
> backend, and if there's any verification failures on a block, it needs
> to acquire the IO lock on the page, and reread from disk.

Yeah, FWIW, Julien Rouhaud was mentioning me that we could use
mdread() and loop over the blocks so as we don't finish loading
corrupted blocks into shared buffers, checking on the way if the block
is already in shared buffers or not.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2019-03-20 00:03:45 Re: Proposal to suppress errors thrown by to_reg*()
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-03-19 23:52:44 Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?