Thread: Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new node types added by partitioning supp
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new node types added by partitioning supp
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec
>> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in
>> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes
>> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still bogus.
>> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we
>> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and
>> clean this up.
> +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the way. We're
> already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we otherwise
> did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative value.
I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on newnode types added by partitioning supp
From
Stephen Frost
Date:
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec > >> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in > >> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes > >> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still bogus. > >> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we > >> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and > >> clean this up. > > > +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the way. We're > > already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we otherwise > > did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative value. > > I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix > if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion? I tend to agree with Noah on this one. Thanks! Stephen
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new nodetypes added by partitioning supp
From
Amit Langote
Date:
On 2017/05/30 11:41, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes: >>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec >>>> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in >>>> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes >>>> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still bogus. >>>> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we >>>> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and >>>> clean this up. >> >>> +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the way. We're >>> already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we otherwise >>> did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative value. >> >> I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix >> if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion? > > I tend to agree with Noah on this one. +1 Thanks, Amit
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new nodetypes added by partitioning supp
From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec
> >> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in
> >> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes
> >> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still bogus.
> >> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we
> >> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and
> >> clean this up.
>
> > +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the way. We're
> > already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we otherwise
> > did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative value.
>
> I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
> if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
I tend to agree with Noah on this one.
+1
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new nodetypes added by partitioning supp
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> > I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix >> > if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion? >> >> I tend to agree with Noah on this one. > > +1 +1 from me, too. I don't see that there's enough advantage in avoiding a catversion bump to justify leaving this footgun behind. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new node types added by partitioning supp
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
>>>> if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
> +1 from me, too. I don't see that there's enough advantage in
> avoiding a catversion bump to justify leaving this footgun behind.
The consensus seems pretty clear. I'll make it so.
regards, tom lane