Hi, On 2026-11-01 12:09:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes: > > On 2026-11-01 17:13:26 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote: > >> Filtering my report with this rule, I think we need to take care of 4-7, > >> 11, 13 > > > We're quite busy, being flooded with bug reports and ginormous patches. Why > > are we trying to find even more work by searching for inconsequential stuff > > like this? I really don't get it. Like, you wrote a fuzzer to search for > > these. WHY? > > The reason was mentioned at the top of the thread: some people monitor > their logs for XX000 errors.
I agree that we should fix XX000s that can appear in logs in realistic ways. But: > I agree that we can't afford to spend a lot of effort on this, but fixing > easily-reached cases seems like a reasonable thing to do, IMO. I guess I just don't think stuff that needs to be found via a fuzzer and requires e.g. hand-making outdated recv input for ltree, or calling deprecated trigger functions (autoinc) outside of triggers are that. Greetings, Andres Freund
