Re: Enabling Checksums

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Date: 2012-11-14 20:06:00
Message-ID: 24644.1352923560@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Regarding checksums, I can add an option for the initdb that the
> buildfarm script runs. We already run different tests for different
> encodings. Of course, constant expanding like this won't scale, so we
> need to pick the options we want to exrecise carefully.

I thought the whole point of the buildfarm was to provide a scalable way
of exercising different combinations of options that individual
developers couldn't practically test. We might need a little more
coordination among buildfarm owners to ensure we get full coverage,
of course.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-11-14 20:15:38 Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-11-14 20:01:09 Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables