Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-03-13 06:22:28
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1903130719110.4059@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hallo Michael,

>> I would bother rounding down < 100% to 100, because then you would get
>> 1560/1492 MB (100\%, X MB/s)
>> which is kind of silly.
> No, we cap the total_size to current_size so you won't see that (but
> total_size will potentially gradually increase). pg_basebackup has the
> same behaviour.


> Because I implemented I/O throttling for pg_checksums


> New patch attached.

Does not apply because of the renaming committed by Michaël.

Could you rebase?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-03-13 06:37:45 Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-03-13 06:19:23 Re: [PATCH] remove repetitive characters in fdwhandler.sgml