On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:56 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 15:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> +# Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
> > >> +# Bug #19056
> >
> > > I don't think it's that useful to note down the bug number that caused
> > > that test to be added.
> >
> > We're inconsistent about whether we do that or not, but it's
> > far from un-heard-of. I just today pushed a patch in which
> > I did mention the bug# in the test case [1], and I did so
> > mostly because the adjacent test case had a similar comment.
> > So I see no reason to object to Amit's usage.
>
> I was just mimicking a few other "cf bug #" mentions in
> eval-plan-qual.spec, but I'm fine to take it out if we'd prefer to
> reduce that. Git blame is enough.
>
> > > I think it'd be better to write something like:
> > > "Exercise run-time partition pruning code in an EPQ plan"
> >
> > Not expressing an opinion about whether that's better or
> > worse than Amit's lede.
>
> What I added is:
>
> # Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
>
> I'm fine to change the comment to David's suggestion since that makes
> the test description less narrowly tied to one fix of one specific
> issue in that path.
Patch updated.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
