Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>>> Hm, if we want that - and it doesn't seem like a bad idea - I think we
>>> should be make it available without recompiling.
>>
>> I suppose, provided it doesn't let CORRUPTION elevel be < ERROR. That
>> might be broken if it was allowed.
>
> What do you think about new argument with default vs. GUC? I guess
> that the GUC might be a lot less of a foot-gun. We might even give it
> a suitably scary name, to indicate that it will make the server PANIC.
> (I gather that you don't care about other aspects of verbosity -- just
> about the ability to make amcheck PANIC in the event of an invariant
> violation without recompiling it.)

Yikes.  I don't think I want to expose any kind of API that lets the
user PANIC the server.  A value < ERROR sounds far more reasonable
than a value > ERROR.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company