On 2017/03/07 14:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>> Also, I found out that alter_table.sql mistakenly forgot to drop
>> partitioned table "p1". Patch 0002 takes care of that.
>
> While that might or might not have been intentional, I think it's an
> astoundingly bad idea to not leave any partitioned tables behind in
> the final state of the regression database. Doing so would likely
> have meant that this particular bug evaded detection for much longer
> than it did. Moreover, it would mean that the pg_upgrade test would
> have exactly no coverage of partitioned cases.
That's true. Should have been apparent to me.
> Therefore, there should definitely be a partitioned table, hopefully with
> a less generic name than "p1", in the final regression DB state. Whether
> this particular one from alter_table.sql is a good candidate, I dunno.
> But let's not drop it without adding a better-thought-out replacement.
OK, let's drop p1 in alter_table.sql. I think a partitioned table created
in insert.sql is a good candidate to keep around after having it renamed,
which patch 0003 does.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
