On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: > >> A broader complaint I have with this patch is that it almost but >> not-quite solves a problem I've had a few times in the past: namely, >> searching through the data directory for data blocks which have LSNs >> in the future. This has come up a few times for me, and this tool >> would make it easier, because I'd be able to run it and look through >> the output to see which relations have high max-LSN values. However, >> it wouldn't be quite enough, because it'd only tell me about the block >> with the highest LSN in each file, whereas what I'd really want to >> find is every block with an LSN greater than some threshold value. >> Maybe I'm pushing the envelope too much by trying to fit that into the >> framework of this patch, but I can't help thinking we're not going to >> want both pg_computemaxlsn and pg_findlsnsaftersomethreshold that are >> 95% the same code, so maybe we ought to rename the utility to >> something slightly more generic than "pg_computemaxlsn". > > Perhaps not coincidentally, I had a need to do this recently. Perhaps > we should turn the utility into a generic tool to report existing LSNs, > with options to 1) report only the highest one in a given file, 2) > report only those that exceed some threshold. So maybe pg_reportlsn or > pg_extractlsn.
How about extending it validate database in more meaningful way and name it as validatedb. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
