| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |
| Date: | 2004-11-16 00:58:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1100566687.23420.52.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:24 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> This seems too obvious a problem to have caused a bug
Well, I'd imagine that we've checked CREATE TABLE et al. with
somewhat-too-large values (like 2000 columns), which wouldn't be
sufficiently large to trigger the problem.
> presumably this has been there for a while?
Not sure.
> Does this mean that we do not have
> regression tests for each maximum setting ... i.e. are we missing a
> whole class of tests in the regression tests?
I'm always in favour of more regression tests -- patches are welcome :)
That said, there are some minor logistical problems with testing that a
70,000 column CREATE TABLE doesn't fail (it would be nice not to have to
include all that text in the regression tests themselves).
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-16 01:53:53 | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-11-16 00:54:53 | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |