Re: BUG #19056: ExecInitPartitionExecPruning segfault due to NULL es_part_prune_infos

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:15 PM feichanghong <feichanghong@qq.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2025, at 14:09, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:56 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 15:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +# Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
> +# Bug #19056
>
>
> I don't think it's that useful to note down the bug number that caused
> that test to be added.
>
>
> We're inconsistent about whether we do that or not, but it's
> far from un-heard-of.  I just today pushed a patch in which
> I did mention the bug# in the test case [1], and I did so
> mostly because the adjacent test case had a similar comment.
> So I see no reason to object to Amit's usage.
>
>
> I was just mimicking a few other "cf bug #" mentions in
> eval-plan-qual.spec, but I'm fine to take it out if we'd prefer to
> reduce that.  Git blame is enough.
>
> I think it'd be better to write something like:
> "Exercise run-time partition pruning code in an EPQ plan"
>
>
> Not expressing an opinion about whether that's better or
> worse than Amit's lede.
>
>
> What I added is:
>
> # Test that EState.es_part_prune_infos is properly set in EvalPlanQualStart()
>
> I'm fine to change the comment to David's suggestion since that makes
> the test description less narrowly tied to one fix of one specific
> issue in that path.
>
>
> Patch updated.
>
> +# EState.es_part_prune_infos bug #19056

Oops, coffee deficiency.  Updated again.

-- 
Thanks, Amit Langote