From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2020-10-26 14:00:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZJ53=joSyJuR7WmXEOfhbBK+0hQBrOO4mWftwekaHS6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:56 AM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Much of the test in 0002 could be ported to work without committing the rest of 0002, if the pg_amcheck command line utiilty is not wanted.
How much consensus do we think we have around 0002 at this point? I
think I remember a vote in favor and no votes against, but I haven't
been paying a whole lot of attention.
> > Thanks for committing (and adjusting) the patches for the existing
> > buildfarm failures. If I understand the buildfarm results correctly,
> > hornet is still unhappy even after
> > 321633e17b07968e68ca5341429e2c8bbf15c331?
>
> That appears to be a failed test for pg_surgery rather than for amcheck. Or am I reading the log wrong?
Oh, yeah, you're right. I don't know why it just failed now, though:
there are a bunch of successful runs preceding it. But I guess it's
unrelated to this thread.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2020-10-26 14:05:10 | Re: Internal key management system |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-10-26 13:56:24 | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |