| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 02:55:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Krp=z-105OvDFm90usNNH9jOdTEM2UTvhN+=hygQgo4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 1:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have tested pg_upgrade with different block size (1K, 4K, 8K, 32K).
> The upgrade is working fine from v10 to v11 and I am able to fetch
> data with index scan on the hash index after an upgrade.
>
Thanks, do you see any way to write a test for this patch? AFAICS,
there is no existing test for a different block size and not sure if
there is an easy way to write one. I feel it is not a bad idea if we
have some tests for different block sizes. Recently, during zheap
development, we found that we have introduced a bug for a non-default
block size and we can't find that because we don't have any test for
it and the same happens here.
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?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2018-09-05 04:04:30 | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-09-05 00:53:15 | Re: pointless check in RelationBuildPartitionDesc |