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: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-03-28 09:08:36
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1903281002300.20516@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> Otherwise a very minor comment: I'd invert !force and the computations in
>> the return condition to avoid the computations when not needed.
>
> The force is only ever true right at the end of the program so it would
> not save anything really and detract from the main gist of that
> statement, so I left it as-is.

Ok.

I marked it as ready, but I'd advise that you split it in (1) progress and
(2) signal toggling so that the first part is more likely to make it
before 12 freeze.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-03-28 09:12:18 Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-03-28 09:06:55 Re: idle-in-transaction timeout error does not give a hint