Horton

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

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

View thread
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, feichanghong <feichanghong@qq.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-09-18T04:19:46Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix EPQ crash from missing partition pruning state in EState

  2. Calculate agglevelsup correctly when Aggref contains a CTE.

  3. Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.

The issue was introduced in v18 dev cycle, so it's never been a
problem in any production build of Postgres. I could get more on board
with an argument for noting these down if it were some long-standing
well known issue that had been around for several years which we
debated how to fix, and finally did.  This isn't that, so IMO, noting
down the bug number is pretty pointless.

David