On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 9:10 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote > On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 at 17:04, Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the test! I looked at this and found that with WCO > > constraints we can also hit the buggy code. Based on David's test case, > > I came up with the following in the morning. > > I ended up going with a WCO option test in the end. I wanted to steer > clear of having a test that has expected broken results from the > generated column code. Also, I just couldn't help thinking the > generated column test felt like it was just glued on the end and not > really in the correct place in the file. > > I've put the new WCO test in along with the existing one. I also > considered modifying one of the existing tests to add another > partitioning level, but I ended up staying clear of that as I felt > like it caused a bit more churn than I wanted with an existing test. > The test I put together tests for the bug and also checks the WCO > works by not updating the row that's outside of the scope of the WCO > view and updating the row that is in the scope of the view. > > I've now pushed your fix plus that test. > > It feels a bit like famine to feast when it comes to tests for this bug today.
Thanks for working on this. -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
