On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:15 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:51 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > ... > Admittedly there is some value in seeing multiple WARNINGs to true > experts that are performing some kind of forensic analysis, but that > doesn't seem worth it to me -- I'm an expert, and I don't think that > I'd do it this way for any reason other than it being more convenient > as a way to get information about a system that I don't have access > to. Even then, I think that I'd probably have serious doubts about > most of the extra information that I'd get, since it might very well > be a downstream consequence of the same basic problem. > ... I understand your thoughts (I think) and agree with them, but at least one scenario where I do want to see *all* errors is corruption prevention – running amcheck in lower environments, not in production, to predict and prevent issues. For example, not long ago, Ubuntu 16.04 became EOL (in phases), and people needed to upgrade, with glibc version change. It was quite good to use amcheck on production clones (running on a new OS/glibc) to identify all indexes that need to be rebuilt. Being able to see only one of them would be very inconvenient. Rebuilding all indexes didn't seem a good idea in the case of large databases.
