Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
Date
Msg-id 2598266.1596686548@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)  (Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
List pgsql-hackers
Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology
>> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here".

> One of the methods I see is we can just add some GUC variable for some
> action injection.   basically it adds some code based on the GUC like this;

See my straw-man proposal downthread.  I'm not very excited about putting
things like this into the standard build, because it's really hard to be
sure that there are no security-hazard-ish downsides of putting in ways to
get at testing behaviors from standard SQL.  And then there's the question
of whether you're adding noticeable overhead to production builds.  So a
loadable module that can use some existing hook to provide the needed
behavior seems like a better plan to me, whenever we can do it that way.

In general, though, it seems like we've seldom regretted investments in
test tooling.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andy Fan
Date:
Subject: Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Which SET TYPE don't actually require a rewrite