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
