Mark Dilger <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mar 12, 2021, at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You might think about using some symmetric-but-not-zero value,
>> 0x01010101 or the like.

> I thought about that, but I'm not sure that it proves much more than just 
> using zero.

Perhaps not.  I haven't really looked at any of this code, so I'll defer
to Robert's judgment about whether this represents an interesting testing
issue.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply via email to