Re: More tests to stress directly checksum_impl.h

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More tests to stress directly checksum_impl.h
Date: 2020-03-08 03:15:14
Message-ID: 20200308031514.GA56468@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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-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 patch and
these are correct.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-03-08 03:44:01 Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2020-03-08 02:55:06 Re: Identifying user-created objects