From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | terje(at)elde(dot)net, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #8410: out of binary heap slots |
Date: | 2013-08-30 23:55:54 |
Message-ID: | 20130830235553.GB11360@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2013-08-30 19:28:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-08-30 18:55:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Not sure. It's pretty disturbing that this wasn't caught earlier;
> >> it seems to me that means there's no regression coverage that hits
> >> ExecReScanMergeAppend. However, I don't much like this specific test case
> >> because it seems like hitting the bug could depend on what series of
> >> random values you get.
>
> > Hm, that should be fixable. How about:
>
> Looks good, applied.
On second thought, it might not be so good looking - the queries results
are independent of the data from merge-append. So we only check that we
don't crash and not that the results make any sense. How about the
attached patch?
I verified that it fails without the binaryheap_reset().
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Improve-regression-test-for-8410.patch | text/x-patch | 4.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-31 01:41:40 | Re: BUG #8410: out of binary heap slots |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-30 23:28:39 | Re: BUG #8410: out of binary heap slots |