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

> On Sep 18, 2025, at 14:09, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:56 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>
>>> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 15:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> +# Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
>>>>> +# Bug #19056
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I was just mimicking a few other "cf bug #" mentions in
>> eval-plan-qual.spec, but I'm fine to take it out if we'd prefer to
>> reduce that. Git blame is enough.
>>
>>>> I think it'd be better to write something like:
>>>> "Exercise run-time partition pruning code in an EPQ plan"
>>>
>>> Not expressing an opinion about whether that's better or
>>> worse than Amit's lede.
>>
>> What I added is:
>>
>> # Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
>>
>> I'm fine to change the comment to David's suggestion since that makes
>> the test description less narrowly tied to one fix of one specific
>> issue in that path.
>
> Patch updated.
> +# EState.es_part_prune_infos bug #19056

There is still bug #19056 here.

Best Regards,
Fei Changhong