| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE |
| Date: | 2021-08-17 06:34:28 |
| Message-ID: | YRtYdAufIc6TQyvx@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:06:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> You patch removes the warning but by doing that also removes the
> feature that is being tested.
Oops. If kept this way, this test scenario is going to need a comment
to explain exactly that.
> I'm not sure what's the best way to go about it, Shall we accept to not
> test this particular feature and remove the warning? After all this is
> not the way the statement should be used, hence the warning. Or should
> be keep it in and redirect the warning? In that case, we would also
> lose other warnings that are not planned, though.
FWIW, I would tend to drop the warning here. I am not sure that this
is a use case interesting enough. My 2c.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-17 06:36:37 | Re: pgsql: pgstat: Bring up pgstat in BaseInit() to fix uninitialized use o |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2021-08-17 06:28:24 | Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot |