On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Ants Aasma <ants.aa...@eesti.ee> wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Attached draft patch adds SCANALL option to VACUUM in order to scan >>> all pages forcibly while ignoring visibility map information. >>> The option name is SCANALL for now but we could change it after got >>> consensus. >> >> If we're going to go that way, I'd say it should be scan_all rather >> than scanall. Makes it clearer, at least IMHO. > > Just to add some diversity to opinions, maybe there should be a > separate command for performing integrity checks. Currently the best > ways to actually verify database correctness do so as a side effect. > The question that I get pretty much every time after I explain why we > have data checksums, is "how do I check that they are correct" and we > don't have a nice answer for that now. We could also use some ways to > sniff out corrupted rows that don't involve crashing the server in a > loop. Vacuuming pages that supposedly don't need vacuuming just to > verify integrity seems very much in the same vein. > > I know right now isn't exactly the best time to hastily slap on such a > feature, but I just wanted the thought to be out there for > consideration.
I think that it's quite reasonable to have ways of performing an integrity check that are separate from VACUUM, but this is about having a way to force VACUUM to scan all-frozen pages - and it's hard to imagine that we want a different command name for that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
