On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So we've got *some*, but it sure looks like they were all added by the
> patch to fix covering indexes for partitions. I'd want to see some for
> plain-table cases as well.
Will do.
--
Peter Geoghegan
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I took a look through all of the SQL files that the INCLUDE covering
> indexes patch added tests to. At no point do they leave behind any
> INCLUDE indexes. I'll do something about that as part of the INCLUDE
> patch that I'm working on at the moment.
A quick look at the
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Traditionally, we've left around instances of various sorts of objects
> so that pg_dump/pg_upgrade would be exercised on those objects. It's
> possible that sqlsmith has different needs in this area, but hard to
> say without more thought.
Clea
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Commit 975ad4e6 fixed a nasty bug in BRIN that was
> originally found by Andreas' fuzz testing. Perhaps that bug would
> still be around if Alvaro had included any DROP statements within
> brin.sql. Presumably his choice to not to do so was completely
> arbitrary. Actually
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Andreas Seltenreich's sqlsmith tool has found an impressive number of
> bugs.
Indeed.
> In light of that, it seems to me that it would be reasonable for
> a contributor to write a regression test that avoids dropping database
> objects specifically so that sqlsmith had
Andreas Seltenreich's sqlsmith tool has found an impressive number of
bugs. In light of that, it seems to me that it would be reasonable for
a contributor to write a regression test that avoids dropping database
objects specifically so that sqlsmith had some chance of finding bugs
after the fact, b
