Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c)
От | Ranier Vilela |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEudQAq3S16UiEa008Wi=4VQnLsW5c9MzC9zOON2MjbWj7Dm+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c) (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Em sáb., 9 de mai. de 2020 às 14:44, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> escreveu:
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:48:59AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>Em sáb., 9 de mai. de 2020 às 01:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
>
>> James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
>> > There are always full sort groups before any prefix groups can happen,
>> > so we know (even though the tooling doesn't) that the 2nd test can
>> > never contradict the first.
>>
>> So maybe an assertion enforcing that would be appropriate?
>> Untested, but:
>>
>> - if (fullsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0 &&
>> - prefixsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0)
>> + if (fullsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0)
>> + {
>> + Assert(prefixsortGroupInfo->groupCount ==
>> 0);
>> continue;
>> + }
>>
>I agree, asserts always help.
>
That doesn't work, because the prefixSortGroupInfo is used before
assignment, producing compile-time warnings.
I've pushed a simpler fix without the assert. If we want to make this
check, perhaps doing it in incremental sort itself would be better than
doing it in explain.
Thanks anyway for the commit.
But if you used the first version of my patch, would the author be me and am I as reported?
But if you used the first version of my patch, would the author be me and am I as reported?
What does it take to be considered the author?
regards,
Ranier Vilela
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: