Re: new heapcheck contrib module

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Date: 2020-10-23 18:04:25
Message-ID: 221029.1603476265@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> The patch I *should* have attached last night this time:

> Thanks, I'll do some big-endian testing with this.

Seems to work, so I pushed it (after some compulsive fooling
about with whitespace and perltidy-ing). It appears to me that
the code coverage for verify_heapam.c is not very good though,
only circa 50%. Do we care to expend more effort on that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2020-10-23 18:06:32 [var]char versus character [varying]
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-10-23 17:13:46 Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits