| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-07-17 01:25:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20200717012532.GB29811@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:50:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think there's definitely value in corrupting data in some predictable
> (reproducible) way and verifying that the check code catches it and
> responds as expected. Sure, this will not be 100% coverage, but it'll be
> a lot better than 0% coverage.
Skimming quickly through the patch, that's what is done in a way
similar to pg_checksums's 002_actions.pl. So it seems fine to me to
use something like that for some basic coverage. We may want to
refactor the test APIs to unify all that though.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2020-07-17 02:06:29 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-07-17 01:16:47 | Re: Encoding of src/timezone/tznames/Europe.txt |