| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Aleksandr Parfenov <a(dot)parfenov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
| Date: | 2018-01-17 21:00:16 |
| Message-ID: | 6358.1516222816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> +1. If the problem isn't known to be reproducible in those branches,
>> the risk of adding new bugs seems to outweigh any benefit.
> You could make the same objection to changing tuplesort_getdatum()
> outside of the master branch, though. I think that going back further
> than that for the (arguably independent) tuplesort_getdatum() subset
> fix might still be a good idea. I wonder where you stand on this.
I haven't been following the thread very closely, so I don't have an
opinion on that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-01-17 21:44:16 | Re: BUG #15001: planner cann't distinguish composite index? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-17 20:41:13 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-01-17 21:01:07 | Re: jsonpath |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2018-01-17 20:50:04 | [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Refuse setting toast.* reloptions when TOAST table does not exist |