> On Oct 23, 2020, at 4:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> You certainly appear to be right about that. I've added the extra checks, and extended the regression test to
includethem. Patch attached.
>
> Pushed with some more fooling about. The "bit reversal" idea is not
> a sufficient guide to picking values that will hit all the code checks.
> For instance, I was seeing out-of-range warnings on one endianness and
> not the other because on the other one the maxalign check rejected the
> value first. I ended up manually tweaking the corruption patterns
> until they hit all the tests on both endiannesses. Pretty much the
> opposite of black-box testing, but it's not like our notions of line
> pointer layout are going to change anytime soon.
>
> I made some logic rearrangements in the C code, too.
Thanks Tom! And Peter, your comment earlier save me some time. Thanks to you, also!
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company