Re: WAL consistency check facility

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date: 2016-08-23 05:46:41
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KzNG0AfZjTpr=ENsUWUtXgmqPbc6rt5GFZ3Wk7FBQjFw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Also, what's the use case of allowing only a certain set of rmgrs to
> be checked. Wouldn't a simple on/off switch be simpler?
>

I think there should be a way to test WAL for one particular resource
manager. For example, if someone develops a new index or some other
heap storage, only that particular module can be verified. Generating
WAL for all the resource managers together can also serve the purpose,
but it will be slightly difficult to verify it.

> As presented,
> wal_consistency_mask is also going to be very quite confusing for
> users. You should not need to apply some maths to set up this
> parameter, a list of rmgr names may be more adapted if this level of
> tuning is needed,
>

Yeah, that can be better.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-08-23 05:47:50 Re: Tracking wait event for latches
Previous Message amul sul 2016-08-23 05:28:37 Re: Bug in to_timestamp().