Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-02-18 15:59:25
Message-ID: 8e2dc0fcbe01567e85ea190cd659bf61b34c74dc.camel@oopsware.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> we
> > can skip it if not?
>
> Yeah - new patch attached.

Maybe i'm wrong, but my thought is that this breaks the SIGUSR1
business, since there seems no code path which calculates total_size in
this case?

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleksii Kliukin 2019-02-18 16:05:13 Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-02-18 15:56:19 boolean and bool in documentation