From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bogus collation version recording in recordMultipleDependencies |
Date: | 2021-04-19 18:04:26 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkQQazrDZOqUSfBi19SZtUqm=ih2ungG0SZD_biBpK0jQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:53 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think that the real fundamental bug is supposing that static analysis
> can give 100% correct answers. Even if it did do so in a given state
> of the database, consider this counterexample:
>
> create type myrow as (f1 int, f2 int);
> create table mytable (id bigint, r1 myrow, r2 myrow);
> create index myindex on mytable(id) where r1 < r2;
> alter type myrow add attribute f3 text;
>
> myindex is recorded as having no collation dependency, but that is
> now wrong.
Is it really the case that static analysis of the kind that you'd need
to make this 100% robust is fundamentally impossible? I find that
proposition hard to believe.
I'm not sure that you were making a totally general statement, rather
than a statement about the patch/implementation, so perhaps I just
missed the point.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-19 18:13:37 | Re: Bogus collation version recording in recordMultipleDependencies |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-04-19 17:55:13 | when the startup process doesn't |