Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos

On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:19, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > We're inconsistent about whether we do that or not, but it's
> > far from un-heard-of. I just today pushed a patch in which
> > I did mention the bug# in the test case [1], and I did so
> > mostly because the adjacent test case had a similar comment.
> > So I see no reason to object to Amit's usage.
>
> The issue was introduced in v18 dev cycle, so it's never been a
> problem in any production build of Postgres. I could get more on board
> with an argument for noting these down if it were some long-standing
> well known issue that had been around for several years which we
> debated how to fix, and finally did. This isn't that, so IMO, noting
> down the bug number is pretty pointless.

Just further to that, while I'm on a rant. It's just not a
sustainable practice to note down the bug numbers. If we did that for
every fix the code and tests would be strewn with random and pretty
meaningless bug numbers. It wouldn't inspire much confidence to the
casual reader of the code either as it would appear mostly to be a
patchwork of fixes. We do have a reputation for good quality. I don't
think we need to put up signs anywhere that indicate mistakes once
existed here, especially for ones that existed in no released version
of PostgreSQL.

David