| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal error codes triggered by tests |
| Date: | 2024-07-04 08:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | 53b6ce8e-e94e-500a-df4a-32f9c9eb56a9@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Michael,
04.07.2024 03:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:56:43AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Thanks. I'll look again at that once v18 opens up for business.
> Looked at that again, and one in tablecmds.c is not needed anymore,
> and there was a conflict in be-secure-openssl.c. Removed the first
> one, fixed the second one, then applied the patch after a second look.
Could you please share your thoughts regarding other error cases, which is
not triggered by existing tests, but still can be easily reached by users?
For example:
SELECT satisfies_hash_partition(1, 1, 0, 0);
ERROR: XX000: could not open relation with OID 1
LOCATION: relation_open, relation.c:61
or:
CREATE TABLE t (b bytea);
INSERT INTO t SELECT ''::bytea;
CREATE INDEX brinidx ON t USING brin
(b bytea_bloom_ops(n_distinct_per_range = -1.0));
ERROR: XX000: the bloom filter is too large (44629 > 8144)
LOCATION: bloom_init, brin_bloom.c:344
Should such cases be corrected too?
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2024-07-04 08:04:47 | RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2024-07-04 07:44:30 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |