Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobrrYwfGMP1zaH73Vrv6ifWKpDfkJpWsBuKDJOr2Ptqyg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> Right, but you still have the option to enable them if you don't want to
>> swamp your IO system. That's why CIC obeys it too. If I was running a
>> consistency check on a production system I'd certainly want the option to
>> throttle it. Without that option, I don't see running this on production
>> systems as being an option. If that's not a goal then fine, but if it is a
>> goal I think it needs to be there.
>>
>> Isn't it just a few extra lines of code to support it?
>
> I see your point.
>
> I'll add that if people like the interface you propose. (Overloading
> the VACUUM cost delay functions to cause a delay for amcheck
> functions, too). Note that the functions already use an appropriate
> buffer access strategy (it avoids blowing shared_buffers, much like
> VACUUM itself).

I don't particularly like that interface.  I also suggest that it
would be better to leave throttling to a future commit, and focus on
getting the basic feature in first.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification