| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect format in error message |
| Date: | 2016-04-01 04:30:31 |
| Message-ID: | 26659.1459485031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The attached fixes an error message which is incorrectly using an
> unsigned format specifier instead of a signed one.
I think that's the tip of the iceberg :-(. For starters, the code
allows ObjectIdAttributeNumber without regard for the fact that the
next line will dump core on a negative attno. Really though, what
astonishes me about this example is that we allow indexes at all on
system columns other than OID. None of the other ones can possibly
have either a use-case or sensible semantics, can they? We certainly
would not stop to update indexes after changing xmax, for example.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-01 04:47:45 | Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-04-01 04:12:28 | Re: Parallel Queries and PostGIS |