Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl?
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoYzorPHAaTMdomFCXFDq1FEfZQzySdzcwM+7bSKREf5Dw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl?
Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:10 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: