| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Date: | 2020-05-14 19:31:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20200514193140.GA19814@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-May-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have a question about what you mean here by "arbitrarily."
>
> If you mean that we shouldn't have the buildfarm run the proposed heap
> corruption checker against heap pages full of randomly-generated
> garbage, I tend to agree. Such a test wouldn't be very stable and
> might fail in lots of low-probability ways that could require
> unreasonable effort to find and fix.
This is what I meant. I was thinking of blocks generated randomly.
> If you mean that we shouldn't have the buildfarm run the proposed heap
> corruption checker against any corrupted heap pages at all, I tend to
> disagree.
Yeah, IMV those would not be arbitrarily corrupted -- instead they're
crafted to be corrupted in some specific way.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-05-14 19:37:07 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-05-14 19:03:57 | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |