From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 22:39:41 |
Message-ID: | 20181209223941.GA3710@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 02:07:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> 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.
Yes, in order to prevent problems with newly-introduced relkinds, I
think that the checks within functions should be careful to check only
for relkinds that they support, and not list those they do not support.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-09 22:42:21 | Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-09 22:33:30 | Re: automatically assigning catalog toast oids |