| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-09-26 11:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1809191738070.901@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hallo Michael,
Patch v3 applies cleanly, code compiles and make check is ok, but the
command is probably not tested anywhere, as already mentioned on other
threads.
The patch is missing a documentation update.
There are debatable changes of behavior:
if (errno == ENOENT) return / continue...
For instance, a file disappearing is ok online, but not so if offline. On
the other hand, the probability that a file suddenly disappears while the
server offline looks remote, so reporting such issues does not seem
useful.
However I'm more wary with other continues/skips added. ISTM that skipping
a block because of a read error, or because it is new, or some other
reasons, is not the same thing, so should be counted & reported
differently?
+ if (block_retry == false)
Why not trust boolean operations?
if (!block_retry)
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-26 11:36:05 | Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-09-26 11:20:49 | Re: pgbench - add pseudo-random permutation function |