Re: segmentation fault using currtid and partitioned tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: segmentation fault using currtid and partitioned tables
Date: 2020-05-27 16:53:23
Message-ID: 20200527165323.GA18403@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-May-26, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 06:29:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Perhaps you are right though, and that we don't need to spend this
> > much energy into improving the error messages so I am fine to discard
> > this part. At the end, in order to remove the crashes, you just need
> > to keep around the two RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE() checks. But I would
> > rather keep these two to use ereport(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> > instead of elog(), and keep the test coverage of the previous patch
> > (including the tests for the aggregates I noticed were missing).
> > Would you be fine with that?
>
> And this means the attached. Thoughts are welcome.

Yeah, this looks good to me. I would have used elog() instead, but
I don't care enough ... as a translator, I can come up with a message as
undecipherable as the original without worrying too much, since I
suspect nobody will ever see it in practice.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grigory Kryachko 2020-05-27 17:00:06 amcheck verification for GiST and GIN
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-05-27 16:35:12 Re: New 'pg' consolidated metacommand patch