On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:59 PM amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:27 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 20:11, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:21 PM Rajkumar Raghuwanshi < >> rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> #2 0x0000000000acd16a in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0xc32310 >> "numfks == attmap->maplen", errorType=0xc2ea23 "FailedAssertion", >> fileName=0xc2f0bf "tablecmds.c", lineNumber=9046) at assert.c:67 >> > >> > >> > Looks like this assertion is incorrect, I guess it should have check >> > numfks <= attmap->maplen instead. >> >> Even that seems like a very strange thing to Assert. Basically it's >> saying, make sure the number of columns in the foreign key constraint >> is less than or equal to the number of attributes in parentRel. >> >> It's true we do disallow duplicate column names in the foreign key >> constraint (at least since 9da867537), but why do we want an Assert to >> say that? I don't see anything about that code that would break if we >> did happen to allow duplicate columns in the foreign key. I'd say the >> Assert should just be removed completely. >> > > Understood and agree with you. > > Attached patch removes this assertion and does a slight tweak to > regression test > to generate case where numfks != attmap->maplen, IMO, we should have this > even if there is nothing that checks it. Thoughts? >
Kindly ignore the previously attached patch, correct patch attached here. Regards, Amul
v2-0001-Remove-unwanted-assert-check-and-a-slight-tweak-t.patch
Description: Binary data
