| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, feichanghong <feichanghong(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos |
| Date: | 2025-09-18 04:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1836971.1758168660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 15:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +# Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
>> +# Bug #19056
> I don't think it's that useful to note down the bug number that caused
> that test to be added.
We're inconsistent about whether we do that or not, but it's
far from un-heard-of. I just today pushed a patch in which
I did mention the bug# in the test case [1], and I did so
mostly because the adjacent test case had a similar comment.
So I see no reason to object to Amit's usage.
> I think it'd be better to write something like:
> "Exercise run-time partition pruning code in an EPQ plan"
Not expressing an opinion about whether that's better or
worse than Amit's lede.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zane Duffield | 2025-09-18 04:17:09 | Re: Lock timeouts and unusual spikes in replication lag with logical parallel transaction streaming |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-09-18 03:47:37 | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos |