| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |
| Date: | 2020-03-18 06:13:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20200318061312.GB58497@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 01:20:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:29:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Based on the feedback gathered on this thread, I guess that you should
> >> have a SRF returning the list of broken blocks, as well as NOTICE
> >> messages.
> >
> > The current patch has an SRF and a WARNING message, do you want an additional
> > NOTICE message or downgrade the existing one?
>
> Right, not sure which one is better, for zero_damaged_pages a WARNING
> is used.
Sorry forgot to answer that. IMHO a WARNING is better here, as we're talking
about data corruption. Also, a WARNING will be reported to both the client and
server logs, which sounds like a good thing.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | asaba.takanori@fujitsu.com | 2020-03-18 06:16:05 | RE: Complete data erasure |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-03-18 06:06:19 | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |