| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "p1" not closed |
| Date: | 2017-03-07 05:04:42 |
| Message-ID: | 9071.1488863082@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Also, I found out that alter_table.sql mistakenly forgot to drop
> partitioned table "p1". Patch 0002 takes care of that.
While that might or might not have been intentional, I think it's an
astoundingly bad idea to not leave any partitioned tables behind in
the final state of the regression database. Doing so would likely
have meant that this particular bug evaded detection for much longer
than it did. Moreover, it would mean that the pg_upgrade test would
have exactly no coverage of partitioned cases.
Therefore, there should definitely be a partitioned table, hopefully with
a less generic name than "p1", in the final regression DB state. Whether
this particular one from alter_table.sql is a good candidate, I dunno.
But let's not drop it without adding a better-thought-out replacement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ideriha, Takeshi | 2017-03-07 05:09:50 | Re: [WIP] RE: DECLARE STATEMENT setting up a connection in ECPG |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-03-07 04:55:00 | Re: WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "p1" not closed |