On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>>>> I would prefer not to bump it to the next CF unless we decide this will
>>>> not get fixed for 9.6.
>>>
>>> It may make sense to add that to the list of open items for 9.6
>>> instead. That's not a feature.
>>
>> So I have moved this patch to the next CF for now, and will work on
>> fixing it rather soonishly as an effort to stabilize 9.6 as well as
>> back-branches.
>
> Well, not that soon at the end, but I am back on that... I have not
> completely reviewed all the code yet, and the case of index relation
> referring to a relation optimized with truncate is still broken, but
> for now here is a rebased patch if people are interested. I am going
> to get as well a TAP tests out of my pocket to ease testing.
The patch I sent yesterday was based on an incorrect version. Attached
is a slightly-modified version of the last one I found here
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56B342F5.1050502@iki.fi), which
is rebased on HEAD at ed0b228. I have also converted the test case
script of upthread into a TAP test in src/test/recovery that covers 3
cases and I included that in the patch:
1) CREATE + INSERT + COPY => crash
2) CREATE + trigger + COPY => crash
3) CREATE + TRUNCATE + COPY => incorrect number of rows.
The first two tests make the system crash, the third one reports an
incorrect number of rows.
This is registered in next CF by the way:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/528/
Thoughts?
--
Michael