From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation |
Date: | 2018-12-09 19:07:29 |
Message-ID: | 19520.1544382449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> ... especially in code that's highly unlikely to break once written.
> I don't entirely buy off on the argument that it's code that's 'highly
> unlikely to break once written' though- we do add new relkinds from time
> to time, for example. Perhaps we could have these functions run just
> once per relkind.
Well, the relevant code is likely to be "if relkind is not x, y, or z,
then PG_RETURN_NULL". If we add a new relkind and forget to consider the
function, the outcome is a NULL result that perhaps should not have been
NULL ... but a test like this won't help us notice that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2018-12-09 19:16:50 | [PATCH] Minor cleanups of BRIN code |
Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2018-12-09 18:55:29 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |