Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes
Date: 2018-09-05 18:28:13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 12:16:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Does anybody else have any idea on how can we write a test for
>> non-default block size or if we already have anything similar?
> Build with a non-default BLCKSZ and see if the regression tests pass.
> There's no way that a build with BLCKSZ x can run any tests for

Or we could implement block-level configuration at initdb time? That's
what Andres has done for WAL segment size recently.

/me hides and runs fast

> Note that you can expect some plan variations from a different BLCKSZ,
> so there'd be at least a few "failures" in the regression tests, which'd
> require manual inspection. Otherwise this could be delegated to a
> buildfarm animal using a nonstandard BLCKSZ.

Last time I did that I saw only plan diffs, which was a couple of weeks

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-09-05 18:35:52 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-09-05 18:20:03 Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo.