From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: t/010_pg_basebackup.pl checksum verify fails with RELSEG_SIZE 1 |
Date: | 2020-01-26 00:49:28 |
Message-ID: | 22822.1579999768@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Sometimes I set RELSEG_SIZE to 1, as a way to get the various in-tree
> tests to give the relation segment code a good workout. That's
> outside the range that configure --with-segsize would allow and
> therefore not really a supported size (it's set in GB), but it's very
> useful for giving the relation segment code a good workout on small
> databases like the check-world ones. At some point I think that
> worked, but now it says:
> t/010_pg_basebackup.pl ... 100/106
> # Failed test 'pg_basebackup does not report more than 5 checksum
> mismatches stderr
So ... presumably, the problem is that this supposes that whatever
damage it did is spread across less than 5 relation segments, and
with a sufficiently small segment size, that assumption is wrong.
I'd say this is a a poorly designed test.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-01-26 05:36:29 | Re: vacuum verbose detail logs are unclear; log at *start* of each stage |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-01-26 00:45:01 | t/010_pg_basebackup.pl checksum verify fails with RELSEG_SIZE 1 |