| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? |
| Date: | 2022-04-04 14:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYzorPHAaTMdomFCXFDq1FEfZQzySdzcwM+7bSKREf5Dw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:10 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I meant to tell the authors of verify_heapam() (also CC'd) that it
> really helped with my recent VACUUM project. While the assertions that
> I wrote in vacuumlazy.c might catch certain bugs like this,
> verify_heapam() is much more effective in practice.
Yeah, I was very excited about verify_heapam(). There is a lot more
stuff that we could check, but a lot of those things would be much
more expensive to check. It does a good job, I think, checking all the
things that a human being could potentially spot just by looking at an
individual page. I love the idea of using it in regression testing in
more places. It might find bugs in amcheck, which would be good, but I
think it's even more likely to help us find bugs in other code.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-04 14:18:14 | Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2022-04-04 13:56:26 | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |