On 2018-Jul-27, David Rowley wrote:
> On 27 July 2018 at 15:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Well, my thinking is that it helps nobody if call sites have to have
> > explicit workarounds for a totally-arbitrary refusal to handle edge
> > cases in the primitive functions. I do not think that is good software
> > design. If you want to have assertions that particular call sites are
> > specifying nonempty ranges, put those in the call sites where it's
> > important. But as-is, this seems like, say, defining foreach() to
> > blow up on an empty list.
>
> Okay, that's a fair point. I agree, adding Asserts at the current
> call sites seems better.
Given the discussion, I pushed two commits: first, bms_add_range returns
the input bms if the range is empty, also adding Rajkumar's test case,
which I also verified to reproduce the bug, and passes (for me) with the
bms_add_range change.
The second commit includes the proposed asserts, but not the change to
avoid calling bms_add_range when the range is empty.
Thanks!
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
