Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:31:40 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Message-ID: <20200514193140.GA19814@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaLUS27N0Ye5pcb7-GQuib3Ds_ZzM1qckgNjp6aSjWgvA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-May-14, Robert Haas wrote:

> I have a question about what you mean here by "arbitrarily."
> 
> If you mean that we shouldn't have the buildfarm run the proposed heap
> corruption checker against heap pages full of randomly-generated
> garbage, I tend to agree. Such a test wouldn't be very stable and
> might fail in lots of low-probability ways that could require
> unreasonable effort to find and fix.

This is what I meant.  I was thinking of blocks generated randomly.

> If you mean that we shouldn't have the buildfarm run the proposed heap
> corruption checker against any corrupted heap pages at all, I tend to
> disagree.

Yeah, IMV those would not be arbitrarily corrupted -- instead they're
crafted to be corrupted in some specific way.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services