Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id 85e66635-f450-2e1c-5612-369a2bf6a62b@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2/3/17 5:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> You can't really see things from other databases that way tho. So you
> need to write a tool that iterates all databases and such.  Not that
> that's a huge problem, but it doesn't make things easier at least.

True. Not terribly hard to iterate though, and if the author of this 
mythical extension really wanted to they could probably use a bgworker 
that was free to iterate through the databases.

> (and you need to deal with things like forks, but that's not a huge
> issue)

Yeah, which maybe requires version-specific hard-coded knowledge of how 
many forks you might have.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq Alternate Row Processor
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy