Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1836971.1758168660@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 15:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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 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. regards, tom lane [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b0cc0a71e0a0a760f54c72edb8cd000e4555442b
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: