On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> Hi > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:31 PM, lpetrov <lppet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have identified a bug in handling Greenplum partitions SQL in pgAdmin3. > > The bug is visible when clicking on Greenplum partition table (the > partition > > itself) and then the SQL for the table is displayed in the SQL pane on > the > > right. The SQL for partitions represents randomly some CREATE TABLE > features > > like "UNLOGGED" or "OF " (type). > > > > I have tracked the problem to pgTable and gpPartition. When > > gpPartitionFactory::CreateObjects() creates and inserts the objects, it > > creates gpPartition objects and gpPartition inherits pgTable. > Unfortunately > > pgTable does not initialize it's members (is there any reason for that?) > and > > relies on the caller/user to set the member variables representing object > > properties one by one. > > With some recent changes introduced in new-ish Postgres versions, new > > members were added to pgTable which were handled in > > pgTableFactory::CreateObjects() (if/else), but not added in > > gpPartitionFactory::CreateObjects(). Therefore when gpPartition object is > > created, members are uninitialized and GetSql() uses random values when > > constructing the SQL string. > > > > This bug can be fixed in several ways, but I believe that the most > > appropriate is to initialize member variables in pgTable. I have > attached a > > patch that does this which fixes the bug mentioned above and the entire > > class of similar bugs. Members are initialized in a way to represent the > > default state of table properties (example: table by default is unlogged > > unless explicitly noted, table is not 'of type' unless explicitly noted, > > etc.). > > > > Let me know if you have any comments or remarks. > > It looks reasonable from a quick readthrough. Unfortunately the patch > won't apply to either the 1.16 branch or git master - can you > regenerate it against the 1.16 branch using "git diff" please? I don't > have Greenplum available to test, so I'd prefer to be working with a > patch that you've tested rather than manually hacking it about here > and hoping I don't mess it up. > > Hi, Sure, attached is the patch against the 1.16 branch generated with "git diff". Thanks! Regards, Lubomir Petrov
pgadmin_pgTable.diff
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
