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
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 |