From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows |
Date: | 2018-08-29 11:47:47 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEyTqbnCji2XvMfg2Bi1B-AN95R2qPeQd23Rc4QQ=Cxq6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, I think we need to open the file in binary mode as in other parts
> >> of the code. The attached patch fixes the problem for me.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Yikes. Yes, I believe you are correct, and that looks like the correct
> fix.
> >
> > I wonder why this was not caught on the buildfarm. We do have regression
> tests for it, AFAIK?
> >
>
> I am not able to find regression tests for it, but maybe I am not
> seeing it properly. By any chance, you have removed it during revert
> of ""Allow on-line enabling and disabling of data checksums".
>
>
Oh meh. You are right, it's in the reverted patch, I was looking in the
wrong branch :/ Sorry about that. And that certainly explains why we don't
have it.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-08-29 12:06:16 | speeding up planning with partitions |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-08-29 11:46:38 | Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option) |