From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
Date: | 2021-10-11 21:33:23 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznCQU7D0aNto5r8V6Qy7JOn+Saaev6jzVrY6GBZLmLFSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:20 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok, I went with this suggestion, and also your earlier suggestion to have a <warning> in the pg_amcheck docs about using --parent-check and/or --rootdescend against servers in recovery.
My concern with --parent-check (and with --rootdescend) had little to
do with Hot Standby. I suggested using a warning because these options
alone can pretty much cause bedlam on a production database. At least
if they're used carelessly. Again, bt_index_parent_check()'s relation
level locks will block all DML, as well as VACUUM. That isn't the case
with any of the other pg_amcheck options, including those that call
bt_index_check(), and including the heapam verification functionality.
It's also true that --parent-check won't work in Hot Standby mode, of
course. So it couldn't hurt to mention that in passing, at the same
point. But that's a secondary point, at best. We don't need to use a
warning box because of that.
Overall, your approach looks good to me. Will Robert take care of
committing this, or should I?
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-10-11 21:38:46 | Re: BUG #17221: Data sending resume |
Previous Message | Zhihong Zhang | 2021-10-11 20:39:37 | Epoch from age is incorrect |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-11 21:41:31 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-10-11 21:24:27 | pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |