Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c6290e25-97c1-5d2c-dc97-846ddb261d4d@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/13/2018 04:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:14:48PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:05:43PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:11:58PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> Agreed. I am just working on a patch for v11- which uses a >>>> whitelist-based method instead of what is present now. Reverting the >>>> tests to put the buildfarm to green could be done, but that's not the >>>> root of the problem. >> I think that's the right solution; the online verification patch adds >> even more logic to the blacklist so getting rid of it in favor of a >> whitelist is +1 with me. > Thanks Michael for the input! > >>> So, I have coded this thing, and finish with the attached. The >>> following file patterns are accepted for the checksums: >>> <digits>.<segment> >>> <digits>_<forkname> >>> <digits>_<forkname>.<segment> >>> I have added some tests on the way to make sure that all the patterns >>> get covered. Please note that this skips the temporary files. >> Maybe also add some correct (to be scanned) but non-empty garbage files >> later on that it should barf on? > I was not sure about doing that in the main patch so I tweaked manually > the test to make sure that the tool still complained with "could not > read block" as it should. That's easy enough to add, so I'll add them > with multiple file patterns. Those are cheap checks as well if they are > placed in global/. > > Another problem that the patch has is that it is not using > forkname_to_number() to scan for all the fork types, and I forgot init > forks in the previous version. Using forkname_to_number() also makes > the tool more bug-proof, it is also not complicated to plug into the > existing patch. > > Anyway, I have a bit of a problem here, which prevents me to stay in > front of a computer or to look at a screen for more than a couple of > minutes in a row for a couple of days at least, and I don't like to keep > the buildfarm unhappy for the time being. There are three options: > 1) Revert the TAP tests of pg_verify_checksums. > 2) Push the patch which adds new entries for EXEC_BACKEND files in the > skip list. That's a short workaround, and that would allow default > deployments of Postgres to use the tool. > 3) Finish the patch with the whitelist approach. > > I can do 1) or 2) in my condition. 3) requires more work than I can do > now, though the patch to do is getting in shape, so the buildfarm would > stay unhappy. Any preference of the course of action to take? I have disabled the test temporarily on my two animals since I want to make sure they are working OK with other changes, and we know what the problem is. Andres might want to do that with his animal also just add "--skip-steps=pg_verify_checksums-check" to the command line. If you want to throw what you have for 3) over to wall to me I can see if I can finish it. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Amit KapilaДата:
Сообщение: Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables