| From: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| 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 20:56:47 |
| Message-ID: | CANNMO+LKbriqX5SU5HbuQ9VYqa79YLpN0sM-ErABkcki05RZwg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:43 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I agree that this matters at the level of whole indexes.
>
I already realized my mistake – indeed, having multiple errors for 1 index
doesn't seem to be super practically helpful.
> 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.
> We should add a "Tip" to the amcheck documentation on 14+ about this.
> We should clearly advise users that they should probably just use
> pg_amcheck.
and with -j$N, with high $N (unless it's production)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-02 20:59:11 | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-02-02 20:42:52 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |