From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pavel Biryukov <79166341370(at)yandex(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
Date: | 2021-04-22 19:09:59 |
Message-ID: | 1194023.1619118599@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-04-22 14:37:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, I could work with that. Shall we spell the error message the
>> same as if it really were a virtual slot, or does it need to be
>> different to avoid confusion?
> Hm. Seems like it'd be better to have a distinct error message? Feels
> like it'll often indicate separate issues whether a non-materialized
> heap slot or a virtual slot has its system columns accessed.
After thinking about it for a bit, I'm inclined to promote this to
a user-facing error, and have all the slot types report
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
errmsg("cannot retrieve a system column in this context")));
which is at least somewhat intelligible to end users. A developer
trying to figure out why it happened would resort to \errverbose or
more likely gdb in any case, so the lack of specificity doesn't
seem like a problem.
> Not entirely clear to me how we'd track whether we have valid system
> column data or not once materialized - which I think is why we
> historically had the cases where we returned bogus values.
Right, but with this fix we won't need to materialize.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-22 19:54:40 | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-22 18:57:24 | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-22 19:10:54 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-22 18:57:24 | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |