Re: Enabling Checksums

Peter Eisentraut escribió:
> On 11/11/12 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I haven't followed this too closely, but I did wonder several days ago
> > why this wasn't being made an initdb-time decision.
>
> One problem I see with this is that it would make regression testing
> much more cumbersome. Basically, to do a proper job, you'd have to run
> all the tests twice, once against each initdb setting. Either we
> automate this, which would mean everyone's tests are now running almost
> twice as long, or we don't, which would mean that some critical piece of
> low-level code would likely not get wide testing.

We already have that problem with the isolation tests regarding
transaction isolation levels: the tests are only run with whatever is
the default_transaction_isolation setting, which is read committed in
all buildfarm installs; so repeatable read and serializable are only
tested when someone gets around to tweaking an installation manually. A
proposal has been floated to fix that, but it needs someone to actually
implement it.

I wonder if something similar could be used to handle this case as well.
I also wonder, though, if the existing test frameworks are really the
best mechanisms to verify block layer functionality.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services