On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 10:34 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> On 2025-Sep-24, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> > I took a quick glance at the patch. My initial comment is: it only
> > includes the test case discussed here, but I think it's a good idea to
> > add more cases in it (that exercise code paths in
> > postgresRecheckForeignScan), as I mentioned upthread. What do you
> > think about that? If no objections, I'd like to update it to include
> > such cases.
>
> I would like to suggest a different approach: because this patch is
> known to fix a server crash in a known case, it would be better to get
> the fix (and its corresponding test) pushed as is without further delay.
> Additional tests are an excellent idea, but I think we shouldn't make
> this patch wait for them. If further fixes are deemed necessary for
> those other (thus far hypothetical) tests, we can still make them
> afterwards.
The 2-step approach sounds reasonable, so I'll review the proposed
isolation test and report the results first.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita