| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database |
| Date: | 2019-04-03 01:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20190403014346.GA3298@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:06:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think having the count and hte last time make sense, but I'm very
> sceptical about the rest.
There may be other things which we are not considering on this
thread. I don't know.
> I can somewhat agree that splitting it on a per database level might even
> at that be overdoing it. What might actually be more interesting from a
> failure-location perspective would be tablespace, rather than any of the
> others. Or we could reduce it down to just putting it in pg_stat_bgwriter
> and only count global values perhaps, if in the end we don't think the
> split-per-database is reasonable?
A split per database or per tablespace is I think a very good thing.
This helps in tracking down which partitions have gone crazy, and a
single global counter does not allow that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-03 01:47:27 | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-03 01:03:29 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |