| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 00:48:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzmew+B-M1rjrFSF4+LdHEGcHrrzCONYP-HhL172MxJOQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Peter, the code does the right thing as it requires the instance's
> control file state to be either DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY or
> DB_SHUTDOWNED. The documentation, on the contrary, implies that
> the instance just needs to be offline, which can be anything as long as
> the postmaster is stopped. That's how I understand the current
> wording.
I see. The problem is clearly the documentation, then.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-04-11 00:50:49 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-04-11 00:47:12 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |