| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Change ereport level for QueuePartitionConstraintValidation |
| Date: | 2019-07-17 17:56:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20190717175627.GA24178@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jul-15, David Rowley wrote:
> I think the only argument against it was around lack of ability to
> test if the constraint was used to verify no row breaks the partition
> bound during the ATTACH PARTITION.
Would it work to set client_min_messages to DEBUG1 for the duration of
the test, or does that have too much unrelated noise?
> Does anyone feel strongly that we need to the test to confirm that the
> constraint was used for this?
Well, IME if we don't test it, we're sure to break it in the future.
The only questions are 1) when, 2) how long till we notice, 3) how
difficult is it to fix at that point. I think breakage is easily
noticed by users, and a fix is unlikely to require hard measures such as
ABI breaks or catversion bumps. I'd like more than zero tests, but it
doesn't seem *that* severe.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2019-07-17 17:59:55 | Re: pg_receivewal documentation |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-07-17 17:46:10 | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |