Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date
Msg-id 8e2dc0fcbe01567e85ea190cd659bf61b34c74dc.camel@oopsware.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
Responses Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> we
> > can skip it if not?
>
> Yeah - new patch attached.

Maybe i'm wrong, but my thought is that this breaks the SIGUSR1
business, since there seems no code path which calculates total_size in
this case?


    Bernd


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: boolean and bool in documentation
Next
From: Oleksii Kliukin
Date:
Subject: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID