On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:35:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Should we make it a separate test in pg_verify_checksums, or should we > piggyback on the pg_basebackup tests (which AFAICT is the only ones that > create a cluster with checksums enabled at all, and thus is the only > codepath that actually uses the backend checksum code at all, which I think > is an even worse thing to have no tests of)
This should be a separate suite. And FWIW, we only use pg_regress to make sure that an already-initialized data folder has the correct, secure authentication set. So creating a node with checksums enabled is just that: $node->init(extra => ['--data-checksums']);
[... 20 minutes later ...] Attached is a basic test suite ;)
Haha, nice timing :)
I wonder if your tests that pg_control has picked things up belong more in the tests of initdb itself?
Do you think there is value in testing against a non-checksum cluster? I guess there's some point to it. I think testing actual corruption (like my version of the tests) is more valuable, but perhaps we should just do both?
