Skip to content

Conversation

@def-
Copy link
Contributor

@def- def- commented Feb 1, 2026

This is based on Gabor's PR #34892. I'll rebase with only the second commit after it's been merged.

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

@def- def- force-pushed the pr-sqlancer++ branch 28 times, most recently from 3f6805d to d946e1e Compare February 3, 2026 06:45
@def- def- requested review from bosconi and ggevay February 3, 2026 09:42
@def- def- marked this pull request as ready for review February 3, 2026 09:42
@def- def- requested review from a team as code owners February 3, 2026 09:42
@ggevay
Copy link
Contributor

ggevay commented Feb 3, 2026

The Postgres CDC CI fail is from #34892 first commit, which I've now fixed in the second commit of that PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@ggevay ggevay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! It seems it's very effective at finding issues!

@def-
Copy link
Contributor Author

def- commented Feb 3, 2026

Yep, I'll just wait until your PR is merged before merging this!

@def-
Copy link
Contributor Author

def- commented Feb 3, 2026

Thank you! It seems it's very effective at finding issues!

Mostly not the kinds of issues it was trying to find though! Only a select few correctness issues.

The panics were mostly found because it seems to have a worse idea of types than SQLsmith/parallel-workload currently and also has some extra syntax.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants