Re: Online verification of checksums
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEz7a6ABBDKzZaEf=6P5LNmHNDNQVK70Hgq2scUKUTSW3w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Online verification of checksums (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 04:10 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 07:58:26AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum
> verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing. However
> it would have side effects, such as interfering deeply with the server page
> cache, which may or may not be desirable.
In what is that different from VACUUM or a sequential scan? It is
possible to use buffer ring replacement strategies in such cases using
the normal clock-sweep algorithm, so that scanning a range of pages
does not really impact Postgres shared buffer cache.
Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about the effect on the postgres cache when that is done. It could of course have a much worse impact on the os cache or on the "smart" (aka dumb) storage system cache. But that effect will be there just as much with a separate tool.
/Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: