Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From David Rowley
Subject Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvqsBxaVLvULRfatHzgc5Xan2t=PciehKBau5Q5GmKOfCg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.

The issue was introduced in v18 dev cycle, so it's never been a
problem in any production build of Postgres. I could get more on board
with an argument for noting these down if it were some long-standing
well known issue that had been around for several years which we
debated how to fix, and finally did.  This isn't that, so IMO, noting
down the bug number is pretty pointless.

David



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Zane Duffield
Date:
Subject: Re: Lock timeouts and unusual spikes in replication lag with logical parallel transaction streaming
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos