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