From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_subscription.subslotname is wrongly marked NOT NULL
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:42:42 -0400
Message-ID: <975217.1595349762@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <732838.1595278439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4118109.1595096139@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<34984.1595124581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<298837.1595196283@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<367660.1595202498@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<732838.1595278439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> * On the other side of the ledger, if we don't fix these markings
> we cannot back-patch the additional assertions I proposed at [1].
> I'm kind of leaning to committing this as shown and back-patching
> the patch at [1], but certainly a case could be made in the other
> direction. Thoughts?
After further thought about that I realized that the assertion patch
could be kluged in the same way as we did in llvmjit_deform.c, and
that that would really be the only safe way to do it pre-v13.
Otherwise the assertions would trip in pre-existing databases,
which would not be nice.
So what I've done is to back-patch the assertions that way, and
*not* apply BKI_FORCE_NULL in the back branches. The possible
downsides of doing that seem to outweigh the upside of making
the catalog state cleaner in new installations.
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, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_subscription.subslotname is wrongly marked NOT NULL
In-Reply-To: <975217.1595349762@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