Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

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.)


-- 
Peter Geoghegan