On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 03:12:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> After thinking more I concluded that the extra expected files would
> just be a waste of tarball space, at least till such time as we make
> a push to fix all the regression tests to be blocksize-independent.
Makes sense.
> Pushed it wit
Michael Paquier writes:
> Thanks for the computations with big-endian! I would have just gone
> down to the 8kB page for the expected results by seeing three other
> tests blowing up, but no objection to what you have here either. I
> have checked the computations with little-endian from your pa
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 01:46:43PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Nice! Looks like I was wrong about the checksums being the same on le/be
> systems for repeated byte values. On closer inspection it looks like >> 17
> at least ensures this will not be true.
Thanks for the computations with big-endia
On 3/7/20 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
Another way would be variant output files, which could be a sane
solution if we put this in its own test script.
I think this way could work; see attached.
I'm not sure if it's actually worth providing the variants for non-8K
block
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:04:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Between that and the BLCKSZ dependency, it's not clear that we can
>> test this with just a plain old expected-file test case. Might
>> need to fall back to a TAP test.
> Perhaps the dependency of page.sql on
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:04:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Between that and the BLCKSZ dependency, it's not clear that we can
> test this with just a plain old expected-file test case. Might
> need to fall back to a TAP test.
Perhaps the dependency of page.sql on 8kB pages could be improved,
sti
Michael Paquier writes:
> Attached is a patch to close the gap by adding new tests to
> pageinspect aimed at detecting any formula change. The trick is to
> make the page data representative enough so as it is possible to
> detect problems if any part of the formulas are changed, like updates
> o
On 3/6/20 2:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
As of the thread which led to addd034 (please see
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1j9ioh-0005kn...@gemulon.postgresql.org,
and sorry about that), it happens that we don't have any tests which
validate the internal data checksum implementation pres
Hi all,
As of the thread which led to addd034 (please see
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1j9ioh-0005kn...@gemulon.postgresql.org,
and sorry about that), it happens that we don't have any tests which
validate the internal data checksum implementation present in core as
of checksum_impl.h.
