Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-04-03 01:49:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:10:34AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> For online, we should want throttling so that the check can have a reduced
> performance impact when scrubbing.

Yes. Throttling is a necessary property in my opinion, perhaps in
combination with some autovacuum-like options to only trigger the
checks for a relation after a certain amout of activity has happened
on it.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-04-03 01:49:25 Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-04-03 01:47:27 Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums