Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)
Date: 2016-07-01 19:10:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYrizRKK=7nsgZTonXuGpOxoXZT1SnCbU09P9hjdS+y4w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The proposed patch contains no test case and no description of how to
>> reproduce the problem. I am not very keen on the idea of trying to
>> puzzle that out from first principles.
>
> I thought that the bug was simple enough that it didn't require a
> testcase. Besides, as I've often complained about there are no tests
> of external sorting in the regression test suite whatsoever. I don't
> think you'd just accept it now if I tried to add some.
>
> I could give you steps to reproduce the bug, but they involve creating
> a large table using my gensort tool [1]. It isn't trivial. Are you
> interested?

The bug can't very well be so simple that you need not include a set
of steps to reproduce it and, at the same time, so complex that even
so much as reading the list of steps to reproduce it might be more
than I want to do.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-07-01 19:13:58 Re: Broken handling of lwlocknames.h
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-07-01 18:59:47 Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion