On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> That presupposes construction of two pieces of software, the server and the
> checker, such that every disagreement is a bug in the server. But checkers
> get bugs just like servers get bugs.
You make a good point, which is
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:57:39PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The checker should
> > consider circumstances potentially carried from past versions via
> > pg_upgrade.
>
> Right. False positives are simply
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> All good questions; I don't know offhand. Discovering those answers is
> perhaps the chief labor required of such a project.
ISTM that by far the hardest part of the project is arriving at a
consensus around what a good set
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:19:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > - Verify agreement between CLOG, MULTIXACT, and hint bits.
>
> This is where it gets complicated, I think. This is what I really want
> to talk about.
>
>