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

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: Online verification of checksums
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171410130.3339@lancre
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Online verification of checksums  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
Responses Re: Online verification of checksums  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hallo Mickael,

> So I have now changed behaviour so that short writes count as skipped
> files and pg_verify_checksums no longer bails out on them. When this
> occors a warning is written to stderr and their overall count is also
> reported at the end. However, unless there are other blocks with bad
> checksums, the exit status is kept at zero.

This seems fair when online, however I'm wondering whether it is when 
offline. I'd say that the whole retry logic should be skipped in this 
case? i.e. "if (block_retry || !online) { error message and continue }"
on both short read & checksum failure retries.

> New patch attached.

Patch applies cleanly, compiles, global & local make check ok.

I'm wondering whether it should exit(1) on "lseek" failures. Would it make 
sense to skip the file and report it as such? Should it be counted as a 
skippedfile?

WRT the final status, ISTM that slippedblocks & files could warrant an 
error when offline, although they might be ok when online?

-- 
Fabien.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?