Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+NRkO9+fD5p=STTDKnubfKMPA4cnWf1zY141k-0bXDJQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, I think we need to open the file in binary mode as in other parts
>> >> of the code.  The attached patch fixes the problem for me.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yikes. Yes, I believe you are correct, and that looks like the correct fix.
>> >
>> > I wonder why this was not caught on the buildfarm. We do have regression tests for it, AFAIK?
>> >
>>
>> I am not able to find regression tests for it, but maybe I am not
>> seeing it properly.  By any chance, you have removed it during revert
>> of ""Allow on-line enabling and disabling of data checksums".
>>
>
> Oh meh. You are right, it's in the reverted patch, I was looking in the wrong branch :/ Sorry about that. And that
certainlyexplains why we don't have it.
 
>

Okay.  I will commit this in a day or so after once verifying it on
PG11 as well.  I think this needs to be backpatched, let me know if
you think otherwise.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows