Thread

Commits

  1. Fix query checking consistency of table amhandlers in opr_sanity.sql

  1. Typo with amtype = 's' in opr_sanity.sql

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-11-21T06:09:20Z

    Hi all,
    
    While rebasing a patch from 2016 related to sequence AMs (more about
    that later), I've bumped on a mistake from 8586bf7ed888 in
    opr_sanity.sql, as of:
    +SELECT p1.oid, p1.amname, p2.oid, p2.proname
    +FROM pg_am AS p1, pg_proc AS p2
    +WHERE p2.oid = p1.amhandler AND p1.amtype = 's' AND
    
    It seems to me that this has been copy-pasted on HEAD from the
    sequence AM patch, but forgot to update amtype to 't'.  While that's
    maybe cosmetic, I think that this could lead to unexpected results, so
    perhaps there is a point in doing a backpatch?
    
    Thoughts?
    --
    Michael
    
  2. Re: Typo with amtype = 's' in opr_sanity.sql

    Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> — 2023-11-21T10:02:40Z

    Hi,
    
    > While rebasing a patch from 2016 related to sequence AMs (more about
    > that later), I've bumped on a mistake from 8586bf7ed888 in
    > opr_sanity.sql, as of:
    > +SELECT p1.oid, p1.amname, p2.oid, p2.proname
    > +FROM pg_am AS p1, pg_proc AS p2
    > +WHERE p2.oid = p1.amhandler AND p1.amtype = 's' AND
    
    Good catch.
    
    > It seems to me that this has been copy-pasted on HEAD from the
    > sequence AM patch, but forgot to update amtype to 't'.  While that's
    > maybe cosmetic, I think that this could lead to unexpected results, so
    > perhaps there is a point in doing a backpatch?
    
    I disagree that it's cosmetic. The test doesn't check what it's supposed to.
    
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Aleksander Alekseev
    
    
    
    
  3. Re: Typo with amtype = 's' in opr_sanity.sql

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-11-22T00:34:24Z

    On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:02:40PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
    >> It seems to me that this has been copy-pasted on HEAD from the
    >> sequence AM patch, but forgot to update amtype to 't'.  While that's
    >> maybe cosmetic, I think that this could lead to unexpected results, so
    >> perhaps there is a point in doing a backpatch?
    > 
    > I disagree that it's cosmetic. The test doesn't check what it's supposed to.
    
    Yes, I've backpatched that all the way down to 12 at the end.
    --
    Michael