From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jose Arthur Benetasso Villanova <jose(dot)arthur(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |
Date: | 2023-02-02 23:16:32 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznWMnmmyOyQt-M1htzzrrPMHyB-u-6AssG1GiwkjhoaTQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:56 PM Nikolay Samokhvalov
<samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I already realized my mistake – indeed, having multiple errors for 1 index
> doesn't seem to be super practically helpful.
I wouldn't mind supporting it if the cost wasn't too high. But I
believe that it's not a good trade-off.
>> I think that that problem should be solved at a higher level, in the
>> program that runs amcheck. Note that pg_amcheck will already do this
>> for B-Tree indexes.
>
>
> That's a great tool, and it's great it supports parallelization, very useful
> on large machines.
Another big advantage of just using pg_amcheck is that running each
index verification in a standalone query avoids needlessly holding the
same MVCC snapshot across all indexes verified (compared to running
one big SQL query that verifies multiple indexes). As simple as
pg_amcheck's approach is (it's doing nothing that you couldn't
replicate in a shell script), in practice that its standardized
approach probably makes things a lot smoother, especially in terms of
how VACUUM is impacted.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2023-02-02 23:59:44 | Re: Remove some useless casts to (void *) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-02 23:12:46 | Re: Remove unused code related to unknown type |