Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c
Date: 2016-07-29 22:57:14
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT1WVHuCVpM+ppKzpz5cf63hSomz4xH9St9g8NwE862VQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> While looking at the series of functions pg_get_*, I have noticed as
>>> well that pg_get_userbyid() returns "unknown (OID=%u)" when it does
>>> not know a user. Perhaps we'd want to change that to NULL for
>>> consistency with the rest?
>
>> That's probably correct in theory, but it's a little less closely
>> related, and I'm not entirely sure how far we want to go with this.
>> Remember, the original purpose was to avoid having an internal error
>> (cache lookup failed, XX000) exposed as a user-visible error message.
>> Are we at risk from veering from actual bug-fixing off into useless
>> tinkering? Not sure.
>
> I'd vote for leaving that one alone; yeah, it's a bit inconsistent
> now, but no one has complained about its behavior.

OK for me. Thanks for the commit.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2016-07-29 23:46:45 Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables)
Previous Message Greg Stark 2016-07-29 21:57:08 Re: sslmode=require fallback