Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, 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: 2019-04-02 08:10:34
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021007150.17899@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> For pg_checksums, probably some improvement patch will be submitted later,
>> if someone feels like it.
> Let's see. I think that what we have now in v12 is good enough for
> checksum operations on an offline cluster. And my take is that we
> should focus more on online checksum verification for v13 and future
> versions.

I agree.

For online, we should want throttling so that the check can have a reduced
performance impact when scrubbing.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-04-02 09:27:08 Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs
Previous Message Jamison, Kirk 2019-04-02 08:00:55 RE: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time