Re: new heapcheck contrib module
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D90E901F-B97A-40A9-86AD-3E42C153A142@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new heapcheck contrib module (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: new heapcheck contrib module
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I think there are two very large patches here. One adds checking of > heapam tables to amcheck, and the other adds a binary that eases calling > amcheck from the command line. I think these should be two separate > patches. contrib/amcheck has pretty limited regression test coverage. I wrote pg_amcheck in large part because the infrastructureI was writing for testing contrib/amcheck was starting to look like a stand-alone tool, so I made it one. I can split contrib/pg_amcheck into a separate patch, but I would expect reviewers to use it to review contrib/amcheck Saythe word, and I'll resubmit as two separate patches. > I don't know what to think of a module contrib/pg_amcheck. I kinda lean > towards fitting it in src/bin/scripts rather than as a contrib module. > However, it seems a bit weird that it depends on a contrib module. Agreed. > Maybe amcheck should not be a contrib module at all but rather a new > extension in src/extensions/ that is compiled and installed (in the > filesystem, not in databases) by default. Fine with me, but I'll have to see what others think about that. > I strongly agree with hardening backend code so that all the crashes > that Mark has found can be repaired. (We discussed this topic > before[1]: we'd repair all crashes when run with production code, not > all assertion crashes.) I'm guessing that hardening the backend would be a separate patch? Or did you want that as part of this one? — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: