| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, ahsan(dot)hadi(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: "ft1" is of the wrong type. |
| Date: | 2021-07-09 02:03:56 |
| Message-ID: | YOeujDqUZj6PfLnZ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 10:44:13AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Sounds reasonable. So the attached are that for PG11-PG14. 11 and 12
> shares the same patch.
How much do the regression tests published upthread in
https://postgr.es/m/20210219.173039.609314751334535042.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
apply here? Shouldn't we also have some regression tests for the new
error cases you are adding? I agree that we'd better avoid removing
those entries, one argument in favor of not removing any entries being
that this could have an impact on forks.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-07-09 02:10:21 | Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-09 01:50:57 | Re: bugfix: when the blocksize is 32k, the function page_header of pageinspect returns negative numbers. |