From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Buglets in equivclass.c
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:17:27 -0400
Message-ID: <1786355.1601918247@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvonTzJBux+kH2k=SqatYkh8q1b5kUkOu6zKf8bwKxNpQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1508010.1601832581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvonTzJBux+kH2k=SqatYkh8q1b5kUkOu6zKf8bwKxNpQA@mail.gmail.com>
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 06:29, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm unsure whether to back-patch either of these. They both seem to be
>> just latent bugs so far as the core code is concerned, but the first one
>> in particular seems like something that could bite extension code.
>> Thoughts?
> That's a good question. I'm leaning towards backpatching both of them.
> The 2nd is new as of v13, so it does not seem unreasonable that
> someone has just not yet stumbled on it with some extension that adds
> extra child ECs. I can imagine a use case for that, by getting rid of
> needless equality quals that duplicate the partition constraint. The
> fix for the first just seems neater/faster/correct, so I can't really
> see any reason not to backpatch it.
Yeah, that's my conclusion too after sleeping on it. Pushed,
thanks for reviewing.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Buglets in equivclass.c
In-Reply-To: <1786355.1601918247@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox