| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2018-10-06 11:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20181006114648.GA1642@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 01:38:05PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> It's too late for v11 though at this point I guess?
Unfortunately yes.
> I think it would be easy to also test the -r command-line option, as we
> already create a table.
Good idea. Let's add this test.
> That comment should read 'that checksums are enabled', right?
Indeed. Fixed.
> Otherwise, LGTM and I've tested it without finding any problems.
What do you think about the updated version attached?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| verify-checksums-tap-v3.patch | text/x-diff | 4.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-10-06 11:47:07 | Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp() |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-10-06 11:01:47 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |