From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Onder Kalaci <onderk(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |
Date: | 2020-10-18 23:25:13 |
Message-ID: | 245480.1603063513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 12:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> TBH, I see no need to do anything in the back branches. This is not
>> an issue for production usage.
> I understand the Assert failure is pretty harmless, so non-assert
> builds shouldn't suffer too greatly. I just assumed that any large
> stakeholders invested in upgrading to a newer version of PostgreSQL
> may like to run various tests with their application against an assert
> enabled version of PostgreSQL perhaps to gain some confidence in the
> upgrade. A failing assert is unlikely to inspire additional
> confidence.
If any existing outside regression tests hit such corner cases, then
(a) we'd have heard about it, and (b) likely they'd fail in the older
branch as well. So I don't buy the argument that this will dissuade
somebody from upgrading.
I do, on the other hand, buy the idea that if anyone is indeed working
in this realm, they might be annoyed by a behavior change in a stable
branch. So it cuts both ways. On balance I don't think we should
touch this in the back branches.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-10-18 23:37:49 | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-10-18 23:18:14 | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |