Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2550497.1596651719@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I'm strongly tempted to convert the trailing Assert to an actual >> test-and-elog, too, but didn't do so here. > I was thinking about that, too. +1 for taking that step. Will do. In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here". If we're going to allow plan-relevant DDL changes to happen with less than full table lock, I think we need to improve that. I spent a little bit of time just now trying to build an isolationtester case for this, and failed completely. So I wonder if we can create some sort of test module that allows capture of a plan tree and then execution of that plan tree later (even after relcache inval would normally have forced replanning). Obviously that could not be a normal SQL-accessible feature, because some types of invals would make the plan completely wrong, but for testing purposes it'd be mighty helpful to check that a stale plan still works. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: