From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only) |
Date: | 2016-07-01 19:10:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYrizRKK=7nsgZTonXuGpOxoXZT1SnCbU09P9hjdS+y4w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The proposed patch contains no test case and no description of how to
>> reproduce the problem. I am not very keen on the idea of trying to
>> puzzle that out from first principles.
>
> I thought that the bug was simple enough that it didn't require a
> testcase. Besides, as I've often complained about there are no tests
> of external sorting in the regression test suite whatsoever. I don't
> think you'd just accept it now if I tried to add some.
>
> I could give you steps to reproduce the bug, but they involve creating
> a large table using my gensort tool [1]. It isn't trivial. Are you
> interested?
The bug can't very well be so simple that you need not include a set
of steps to reproduce it and, at the same time, so complex that even
so much as reading the list of steps to reproduce it might be more
than I want to do.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-01 19:13:58 | Re: Broken handling of lwlocknames.h |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-01 18:59:47 | Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion |