| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2016-07-03 03:47:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSUEJ_OfpJkcAOz7e6QtQP941d3Es4Wc1+WGDZOJpZH4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In the interest of clarity, I was not intending to say that there
> should be a regression test in the patch. I was intending to say that
> there should be a test case with the bug report. I'm not opposed to
> adding a regression test, and I like the idea of attempting to do so
> while requiring only a relatively small amount of data by changing
> maintenance_work_mem, but that wasn't the target at which I was
> aiming. Nevertheless, carry on.
How do you feel about adding testing to tuplesort.c not limited to
hitting this bug (when Valgrind memcheck is used)?
Are you satisfied that I have adequately described steps to reproduce?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2016-07-03 05:05:40 | Re: to_date_valid() |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-07-03 03:34:43 | Re: Column COMMENTs in CREATE TABLE? |