On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:50:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think there's definitely value in corrupting data in some predictable > (reproducible) way and verifying that the check code catches it and > responds as expected. Sure, this will not be 100% coverage, but it'll be > a lot better than 0% coverage.
Skimming quickly through the patch, that's what is done in a way similar to pg_checksums's 002_actions.pl. So it seems fine to me to use something like that for some basic coverage. We may want to refactor the test APIs to unify all that though. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
