Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date: 2018-01-23 02:07:33
Message-ID: 20180123020733.GB10053@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:22:05PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Michael said he'd do more review. I generally feel this is close, though.

Yep. I have provided the feedback I wanted for 0001 (no API change in
the bloom facility by the way :( ), but I still wanted to look at 0002
in depths.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-01-23 02:21:22 Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2018-01-23 02:07:13 [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump