Re: CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE seq faults when debug_discard_caches=1
От | David Geier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE seq faults when debug_discard_caches=1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f17a1cf0-1219-bfa3-09ae-a2271d789a9d@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE seq faults when debug_discard_caches=1 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE seq faults when debug_discard_caches=1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom, Back-patching but keeping RelationOpenSgmr() for extensions sounds reasonable. On a different note: are we frequently running our tests suites with debug_discard_caches=1 enabled? It doesn't seem like. I just ran make check with debug_discard_caches=1 on - latest master: everything passes. - version 14.5: fails in create_index, create_index_spgist, create_view. So the buggy code path is at least covered by the tests. But it seems like we could have found it earlier by regularly running with debug_discard_caches=1. -- David Geier (ServiceNow) On 11/17/22 18:51, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> I wonder whether we ought to back-patch f10f0ae42. We could >> leave the RelationOpenSmgr macro in existence to avoid unnecessary >> breakage of extension code, but stop using it within our own code. > Concretely, about like this for v14 (didn't look at the older > branches yet). > > I'm not sure whether to recommend that outside extensions switch to using > RelationGetSmgr in pre-v15 branches. If they do, they run a risk > of compile failure should they be built against old back-branch > headers. Once compiled, though, they'd work against any minor release > (since RelationGetSmgr is static inline, not something in the core > backend). So maybe that'd be good enough, and keeping their code in > sync with what they need for v15 would be worth something. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: