On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:35:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Should we make it a separate test in pg_verify_checksums, or should we > > piggyback on the pg_basebackup tests (which AFAICT is the only ones that > > create a cluster with checksums enabled at all, and thus is the only > > codepath that actually uses the backend checksum code at all, which I > think > > is an even worse thing to have no tests of) > > This should be a separate suite. And FWIW, we only use pg_regress to > make sure that an already-initialized data folder has the correct, > secure authentication set. So creating a node with checksums enabled is > just that: > $node->init(extra => ['--data-checksums']); > > [... 20 minutes later ...] > Attached is a basic test suite ;) > Haha, nice timing :) I wonder if your tests that pg_control has picked things up belong more in the tests of initdb itself? Do you think there is value in testing against a non-checksum cluster? I guess there's some point to it. I think testing actual corruption (like my version of the tests) is more valuable, but perhaps we should just do both? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
