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.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
