Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqHc+8JUgGiCZz=SJ29H12E6Ues3+JwiBZL1Fx=ti8frHA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro, On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:58 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2022-Mar-20, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 5:13 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > On 2022-Mar-18, Zhihong Yu wrote: > > > > > + if (!partRel->rd_rel->relispartition) > > > > + elog(ERROR, "cannot find ancestors of a non-partition result > > > > relation"); > > > > > > > > It would be better to include the relation name in the error message. > > > > > > I don't think it matters. We don't really expect to hit this. > > > > I tend to think maybe showing at least the OID in the error message > > doesn't hurt, but maybe we don't need to. > > Since we don't even know of a situation in which this error message > would be raised, I'm hardly bothered by failing to print the OID. If > any users complain, we can add more detail. Sure. > I lament the fact that this fix is not going to hit Postgres 12-14, but > ratio of effort to reward seems a bit too high. I think we could > backpatch the two involved commits if someone is motivated enough to > verify everything and come up with solutions for the necessary ABI > changes. > > Thank you, Amit, for your perseverance in getting this bug fixed! Thanks a lot for taking the time to review and commit. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: