From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
Date: | 2020-08-05 19:59:54 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=XeebtddujUfHu7-UP_fbNNWGzxU1U=5wWk1ZQmJS3w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here". If we're going
> to allow plan-relevant DDL changes to happen with less than full table
> lock, I think we need to improve that. I spent a little bit of time
> just now trying to build an isolationtester case for this, and failed
> completely. So I wonder if we can create some sort of test module that
> allows capture of a plan tree and then execution of that plan tree later
> (even after relcache inval would normally have forced replanning).
> Obviously that could not be a normal SQL-accessible feature, because
> some types of invals would make the plan completely wrong, but for
> testing purposes it'd be mighty helpful to check that a stale plan
> still works.
That's an interesting idea. I don't know exactly how it would work,
but I agree that it would allow useful testing that we can't do today.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-05 20:13:17 | Re: Hybrid Hash/Nested Loop joins and caching results from subplans |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-05 19:58:56 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |