Re: Online checksums verification in the backend

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Date: 2020-03-16 13:15:22
Message-ID: 20200316131522.GA70971@nol
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:42:39AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:53:35PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > In addition to comments from Michael-san, here are my comments:

Thanks both for the reviews. I'm attaching a v3 with all comments addressed,

> It seems to me that this test would be a good fit for
> src/test/modules/test_misc/.

AFAICT this is explicitly documented as tests for various extensions, and for
now it's a core function, so I didn't move it.

> +Run
> + make check
> +or
> + make installcheck
> Why is installcheck mentioned here?

This is actually already used in multiple other test readme.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Add-a-pg_check_relation-function.patch text/plain 37.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2020-03-16 13:17:37 Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree
Previous Message James Coleman 2020-03-16 13:08:36 Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans