Re: PostgreSQL 'Corruption & Fragmentation' detection and resolution/fix

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Rui DeSousa <rui(dot)desousa(at)icloud(dot)com>
Cc: pavan95 <pavan(dot)postgresdba(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 'Corruption & Fragmentation' detection and resolution/fix
Date: 2018-06-12 16:16:21
Message-ID: CAH2-WznwVDbuCT7OG-CW0Fg1=JyPWLO6Yoo+i_BRtTry6wRVWw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Rui DeSousa <rui(dot)desousa(at)icloud(dot)com> wrote:
> Note that DBCC was never a selling point and neither is fsck; the fact that those tools are needed is a problem.

DBCC is a selling point. "Parallel consistency check" is a feature
that is only available in SQL Server enterprise edition.

PostgreSQL has comparable tooling - contrib/amcheck. As I said,
amcheck is available as an external project for Postgres versions
prior to 10.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rui DeSousa 2018-06-12 16:46:20 Re: PostgreSQL 'Corruption & Fragmentation' detection and resolution/fix
Previous Message Rui DeSousa 2018-06-12 15:21:43 Re: PostgreSQL 'Corruption & Fragmentation' detection and resolution/fix