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

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, feichanghong <feichanghong(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
Date: 2025-09-18 04:19:46
Message-ID: CAApHDvqsBxaVLvULRfatHzgc5Xan2t=PciehKBau5Q5GmKOfCg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think it's that useful to note down the bug number that caused
> > that test to be added.
>
> 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.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2025-09-18 04:29:28 Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
Previous Message Zane Duffield 2025-09-18 04:17:09 Re: Lock timeouts and unusual spikes in replication lag with logical parallel transaction streaming