Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEzqYvseJpU=PabvLJu9gf2c14M+FDC_RYFo3_iEL4u-UA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, I think we need to open the file in binary mode as in other parts
>> >> of the code.  The attached patch fixes the problem for me.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yikes. Yes, I believe you are correct, and that looks like the correct fix.
>> >
>> > I wonder why this was not caught on the buildfarm. We do have regression tests for it, AFAIK?
>> >
>>
>> I am not able to find regression tests for it, but maybe I am not
>> seeing it properly.  By any chance, you have removed it during revert
>> of ""Allow on-line enabling and disabling of data checksums".
>>
>
> Oh meh. You are right, it's in the reverted patch, I was looking in the wrong branch :/ Sorry about that. And that certainly explains why we don't have it.
>

Okay.  I will commit this in a day or so after once verifying it on
PG11 as well.  I think this needs to be backpatched, let me know if
you think otherwise.


Definitely a bug so yes, it needs backpatching. 


--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
Следующее
От: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Problem while updating a foreign table pointing to apartitioned table on foreign server