On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 at 21:48, Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi,
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. Okay. The thing started with my thread [0] where I have reported an error which I encountered myself (we have a set of private patches about locales). > 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 requires e.g. hand-making outdated recv input for ltree, or calling deprecated 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. OK, I can agree all error are not-likely-sql-reachable, expect case 13 from my report, which is a real server bug in catcache. > Greetings, > > Andres Freund [0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALdSSPhHy0HeptBdEhaetg%2BabhG_qjRgMb0BB38%2B7JezC4jnzA%40mail.gmail.com -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
