Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "p1" not closed

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ideriha, TakeshiDate: 2017-03-07 05:09:50
Subject: Re: [WIP] RE: DECLARE STATEMENT setting up a connection in ECPG
Previous:From: Amit LangoteDate: 2017-03-07 04:55:00
Subject: Re: WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "p1" not closed

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group