Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing
Date: 2018-08-30 22:44:58
Message-ID: 20180830224458.GH15446@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:07:38PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I wonder if your tests that pg_control has picked things up belong more in
> the tests of initdb itself?

For the case where checksums are disabled, moving there the check on
control data makes sense.

> Do you think there is value in testing against a non-checksum cluster? I
> guess there's some point to it. I think testing actual corruption (like my
> version of the tests) is more valuable, but perhaps we should just do both?

Yeah, let's do stuff on a single cluster which has them only enabled,
as initializing a node is one of the most costly operations in TAP
tests. Checking that the server is stopped is definitely a must in my
opinion, and your addition about emulating corrupted blocks is a good
idea. I would personally vote for keeping a control file check within
the tests of pg_verify_checksums as that's cheap.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-08-30 23:02:15 Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-08-30 22:33:15 Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing