From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
Date: | 2016-11-20 02:45:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobcqVdf2UZ6R+3w321CBGdhrVfnyNCmmc7NdGLXsAtEHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hm, if we want that - and it doesn't seem like a bad idea - I think we
>>> should be make it available without recompiling.
>>
>> I suppose, provided it doesn't let CORRUPTION elevel be < ERROR. That
>> might be broken if it was allowed.
>
> What do you think about new argument with default vs. GUC? I guess
> that the GUC might be a lot less of a foot-gun. We might even give it
> a suitably scary name, to indicate that it will make the server PANIC.
> (I gather that you don't care about other aspects of verbosity -- just
> about the ability to make amcheck PANIC in the event of an invariant
> violation without recompiling it.)
Yikes. I don't think I want to expose any kind of API that lets the
user PANIC the server. A value < ERROR sounds far more reasonable
than a value > ERROR.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-11-20 04:38:14 | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-20 02:01:23 | Re: [sqlsmith] Crash on GUC serialization |