Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvqsBxaVLvULRfatHzgc5Xan2t=PciehKBau5Q5GmKOfCg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes: > > 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. The issue was introduced in v18 dev cycle, so it's never been a problem in any production build of Postgres. I could get more on board with an argument for noting these down if it were some long-standing well known issue that had been around for several years which we debated how to fix, and finally did. This isn't that, so IMO, noting down the bug number is pretty pointless. David
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: