| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: offline consistency check and info on attributes |
| Date: | 2011-04-27 04:57:34 |
| Message-ID: | 7144.1303880254@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tomas Vondra's message of mar abr 26 17:39:19 -0300 2011:
>> Dne 25.4.2011 18:16, Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
>> I think I'll move the integrity check to the db, so that it's possible
>> to check the column lengths etc. (pageinspect seems like a good module
>> to mutilate in this direction) but I still believe it'd be useful to
>> have an offline tool for basic checks. Would pg_filedump be a resonable
>> tool to do that?
> No, I don't think pg_filedump is a good host for such checks. If we're
> going to have a tool to do that it'd be better to be able to include it in
> core (or at least contrib), and we can't have pg_filedump in there for
> licensing reasons.
Quite aside from licensing reasons, pg_filedump is only meant to print
out a very low-level representation of file contents; it has little
real understanding of what it's printing. So I think it's a bad basis
for a verification utility on technical grounds too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shiv | 2011-04-27 06:20:31 | Introduction |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-27 04:50:47 | Re: unknown conversion %m |