On 2018-05-04 11:53:25 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Could you expand on that? Are you envisioning an option to > > ReadBufferExtended()? Because that's certainly not what I'm thinking of > > - it seems dangerous to populate shared buffers with an invalid > > page. Therefore I was more thinking to falling back to smgrread() or > > such. > > I'm not envisaging anything specific just yet. It would be nice if > amcheck had an option that bypassed shared_buffers, because users want > that. That's all.
Can you expand on what they want? - Avoid polluting caches? Why's the ringbuffer logic not good enough? - Continue after a checksum or similar failure? That seems a bit useless for amcheck imo? You know there's corruption at that point after all. - Read on disk data, bypassing shared buffers? That'd present a lot of coherency issues, no? Greetings, Andres Freund
