On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:02 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/4/19 4:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 07:58:26AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum > >> verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing. > However > >> it would have side effects, such as interfering deeply with the server > page > >> cache, which may or may not be desirable. > > > > In what is that different from VACUUM or a sequential scan? It is > > possible to use buffer ring replacement strategies in such cases using > > the normal clock-sweep algorithm, so that scanning a range of pages > > does not really impact Postgres shared buffer cache. > > -- > > But Fabien was talking about page cache, not shared buffers. And we > can't use custom ring buffer there. OTOH I don't see why accessing the > file through SQL function would behave any differently than direct > access (i.e. what the tool does now). > It shouldn't. One other thought that I had around this though, which if it's been covered before and I missed it, please disregard :) The *online* version of the tool is very similar to running pg_basebackup to /dev/null, is it not? Except it doesn't set the cluster to backup mode. Perhaps what we really want is a simpler way to do *that*. That wouldn't necessarily make it a SQL callable function, but it would be a CLI tool that would call a command on a walsender for example. (We'd of course still need the standalone tool for offline checks) -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
