Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQxR5TNVEQxob+fZr99x0_Z3QwM_8r0pDDeVAMdrjU=kQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: function xmltable
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Mail thread references in commits