| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Keith Paskett <keith(dot)paskett(at)logansw(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint |
| Date: | 2025-04-30 10:45:11 |
| Message-ID: | 202504301045.7cjojr7ut2fo@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2025-Apr-30, Japin Li wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. A test case has been added to create_index.sql.
> Could you please take a look?
Well, it seems a bit minimalistic -- I would try to be more adversarial
about it maybe, because details are where devil(s) lie.
You need to add comments in CompareIndexInfo about your new code. Why
is it okay to ignore ii_ExclusionProcs and ii_ExclusionStrats? Why is
it okay to not have tests that set up tables with those things as
different so that this function returns false in these cases? Why do
you have a test for a table set up where the positive case is handled,
but no case for the negative case?
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2025-04-30 11:25:56 | BUG #18908: DEREF_OF_NULL: After having been assigned to a NULL value at descriptor.c:203 |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2025-04-30 06:38:14 | Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint |