| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Date: | 2021-11-07 18:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20211107184649.mpncdezkzfq2v4pb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-11-05 08:42:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 7:38 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > It seems like this specific approach has been mostly shot down already.
> > But out of curiosity, are you intending to run CHECKPOINT during
> > bootstrap or something?
>
> Imagine a system with corruption in pg_proc. Right now, that won't
> prevent you from successfully executing a checkpoint. With this
> approach, it might.
Exactly. It wouldn't matter if checkpoints weren't something needed to
potentially bring the system back into a sane state, but ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-11-07 18:50:49 | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-07 17:30:23 | Re: amcheck's verify_heapam(), and HOT chain verification |