Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Álvaro Herrera
Subject Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint
Date
Msg-id 202504301045.7cjojr7ut2fo@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint  (Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
On 2025-Apr-30, Japin Li wrote:

> Thank you for the explanation. A test case has been added to create_index.sql.
> Could you please take a look?

Well, it seems a bit minimalistic -- I would try to be more adversarial
about it maybe, because details are where devil(s) lie.

You need to add comments in CompareIndexInfo about your new code.  Why
is it okay to ignore ii_ExclusionProcs and ii_ExclusionStrats?  Why is
it okay to not have tests that set up tables with those things as
different so that this function returns false in these cases?  Why do
you have a test for a table set up where the positive case is handled,
but no case for the negative case?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Japin Li
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint
Next
From: PG Bug reporting form
Date:
Subject: BUG #18908: DEREF_OF_NULL: After having been assigned to a NULL value at descriptor.c:203