On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I guess that means I have to go back to extending the grammar again :-).
>
> I await the results with interest. Did you note the suggestion about
> trying to stress the ON CONFLICT code with this? You'd need it to
> issue non-SELECT queries, which might create some reproducibility
> issues...
About 80% of the bugs we've seen so far are the type that a tool like
sqlsmith could plausibly catch: bugs that trigger defensive "can't
happen" elog(ERROR, ... ) calls within the planner and rewriter. While
I've been vigilant, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if more were
found, given the total flexibility of the ON CONFLICT syntax.
--
Peter Geoghegan
