Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>>> - In recovery tests (src/test/recovery/t), I've added wal_consistency
>>>> parameter in the existing scripts. This feature doesn't change the
>>>> expected output. If there is any inconsistency, it can be verified in
>>>> corresponding log file.
>>>
>>> I am afraid that just generating a WARNING message is going to be
>>> useless for the buildfarm. If we want to detect errors, we could for
>>> example have an additional GUC to trigger an ERROR or a FATAL, taking
>>> down the cluster, and allowing things to show in red on a platform.
>>>
>> Yes, we can include an additional GUC to trigger an ERROR for any inconsistency.
>
> I'd like to hear extra opinions about that, but IMO just having an
> ERROR would be fine for the first implementation. Once you've bumped
> into an ERROR, you are likely going to fix it first.
>

+1 for just an ERROR to detect the inconsistency. I think adding
additional GUC just to raise error level doesn't seem to be advisable.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com