| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database |
| Date: | 2019-03-30 17:15:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_anyeHuG42W1PEUY922MPz+rMdEMpe8R_EtfxN9_g4ggg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry for delay, I had to catch a train.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> My vote is still to drop it completely, but if we're keeping it, it has to go in both paths.
Ok. For now I'm attaching v2, which drops this field, rename the view
to pg_stat_checksums (terminal s), and use the policy for choosing
random oid in the 8000..9999 range for new functions.
I'd also have to get more feedback on this. For now, I'll add this
thread to the pg12 open items, as a follow up of the initial code
drop.
> Technically, that should be in pg_stat_progress_checksums to be consistent :) So whichever way we turn, it's going to be inconsistent with something.
Indeed :)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_stat_checksums-v2.diff | text/x-patch | 12.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-03-30 17:52:56 | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2019-03-30 16:55:20 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |