Re: More tests to stress directly checksum_impl.h

On 3/7/20 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> 
>>> Another way would be variant output files, which could be a sane
>>> solution if we put this in its own test script.
> 
> I think this way could work; see attached.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's actually worth providing the variants for non-8K
> block sizes.  While running the tests to construct those, I was reminded
> that not only do several of the other pageinspect tests "fail" at
> nondefault block sizes, but so do the core regression tests and some
> other tests as well.  We are a long way from having check-world pass
> with nondefault block sizes, so maybe this test doesn't need to either.
> However, there's something to be said for memorializing the behavior
> we expect.

Nice! Looks like I was wrong about the checksums being the same on le/be 
systems for repeated byte values. On closer inspection it looks like >> 
17 at least ensures this will not be true.

Good to know.

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net