Re: Online verification of checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Online verification of checksums
Date
Msg-id CABUevEz7a6ABBDKzZaEf=6P5LNmHNDNQVK70Hgq2scUKUTSW3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Online verification of checksums  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List 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 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION with FOR TABLES clause (table filter)
Next
From: "Jamison, Kirk"
Date:
Subject: RE: pgbench - doCustom cleanup