| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ilya Cherdakov <i(dot)cherdakov(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert in test_bms_membership(); |
| Date: | 2026-09-08 20:09:27 |
| Message-ID: | v3whfmlcz7tkbrq4ch722u7hnlno7zbv65py77uf7lqe6lkpe4@jgmaeb532nok |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-09-08 14:32:31 -0500, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
> This seem to be 0002 from a patchset I submitted yesterday[1].
>
> > Perhaps a stupid question, but: Who cares?
>
> My reasoning for this was that the other test module that has the same
> issue (test_extensible) states that it is an example for extension
> developers:
>
> This module can be used as a template for developers willing to develop
> their own extensions. "Writing a Custom Scan Provider" covers the
> documentation for custom scans.
> So I thought a small fix is a good improvement there, and then
> test_bms_membership was an easy follow up because it's the same thing.
We are drowning in patches, with actual (not AI) review and committer
bandwidth being the bottleneck. I think showing that we accept patches for
making test modules not crash when held in bogus ways is a good way to make
that even worse.
I think using these modules as templates for real extensions tends to be a not
great idea. I turns out test code, which tends to lean towards testing edge
cases etc, is rarely nice, easy to understand, code.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2026-09-08 20:33:17 | Re: Fix var_eq_const: sum selectivity of all matching MCV entries instead of stopping at first match |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-09-08 20:08:46 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) rewrites tables marked with user_catalog_table |