Re: Enabling Checksums
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-11-14T20:21:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11/14/2012 03:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> Regarding checksums, I can add an option for the initdb that the >> buildfarm script runs. We already run different tests for different >> encodings. Of course, constant expanding like this won't scale, so we >> need to pick the options we want to exrecise carefully. > I thought the whole point of the buildfarm was to provide a scalable way > of exercising different combinations of options that individual > developers couldn't practically test. We might need a little more > coordination among buildfarm owners to ensure we get full coverage, > of course. > > Yes, true. So lets' wait and see how the checksums thing works out and then we can tackle the buildfarm end. At any rate, I don't think the buildfarm is a reason not to have this as an initdb setting. cheers andrew