Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZSa+BD=Pg1HpKXmRMUB-egVfO1GQPt8sP58YOeW0ewPwQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > To recap, the extension adds some SQL-callable functions that verify > certain invariant conditions hold within some particular B-Tree index. > These are the conditions that index scans rely on always being true. > The tool's scope may eventually cover other AMs, including heapam, but > nbtree seems like the best place to start. Noah and I discussed possible future directions for amcheck in person recently. I would like to get Noah's thoughts again here on how a tool like amcheck might reasonably target other access methods for verification. In particular, the heapam. MultiXacts were mentioned as a structure that could receive verification in a future iteration of this tool, but I lack expertise there. I've placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of having a low-overhead verification process, particularly in terms of the strength of heavyweight lock that the verification process requires. Ideally, it would be possible to run any new verification process in a fairly indiscriminate way with only limited impact on live production systems. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: