Re: Checksums by default?

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checksums by default?
Date: 2017-02-04 00:53:05
Message-ID: 85e66635-f450-2e1c-5612-369a2bf6a62b@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/3/17 5:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> You can't really see things from other databases that way tho. So you
> need to write a tool that iterates all databases and such. Not that
> that's a huge problem, but it doesn't make things easier at least.

True. Not terribly hard to iterate though, and if the author of this
mythical extension really wanted to they could probably use a bgworker
that was free to iterate through the databases.

> (and you need to deal with things like forks, but that's not a huge
> issue)

Yeah, which maybe requires version-specific hard-coded knowledge of how
many forks you might have.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2017-02-04 01:13:45 Re: PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2017-02-04 00:46:45 Re: libpq Alternate Row Processor