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 CAM3SWZSa+BD=Pg1HpKXmRMUB-egVfO1GQPt8sP58YOeW0ewPwQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup stream xlog to tar
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers