Re: Unexpected (wrong?) result querying boolean partitioned table with NULL partition

From: David Kimura <david(dot)g(dot)kimura(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected (wrong?) result querying boolean partitioned table with NULL partition
Date: 2023-04-13 16:19:22
Message-ID: CAHnPFjRLQEmfM2vdCjGjLfGcPT6nt4j5Dspk3mqNtMqY1Stm-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:13 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> There seems to be a bunch of tests checking this already, all of them
> assuming the incorrect plans.

Given that the plan alone wasn't sufficient to catch this error previously,
would it be worthwhile to add some data to the tests to make it abundantly
obvious?

I had noticed that the default partition seems to be an edge case in the code.
Perhaps it's overkill, but would it be worth adding a test where the NULL
partition is not the default?

Thanks,
David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-04-13 16:39:46 Re: [PATCH] Add `verify-system` sslmode to use system CA pool for server cert
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-04-13 16:16:38 Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?