Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2018-02-18 11:18:43
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavan Deolasee writes:

> Thanks for doing those tests. I've just sent v16a version of the patch and
> I think it fixes the issues reported so far. Can you please recheck? Please
> let me know if there are other issues detected by sqlsmith or otherwise.

I re-did the testing with merge_v16a applied to master at 7923118c16
with ad7dbee368a reverted because of conflicts. I can confirm that the
previous testcases don't fail anymore, but sqlsmith readily triggers the
following assertion:

TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(mergeTargetRelation > 0)", File: "planner.c",
Line: 1496)

Testcase attached.


Attachment Content-Type Size
merge-v16a-trap-planner.c.sql application/x-sql 1.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michail Nikolaev 2018-02-18 13:43:20 Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order?
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-02-18 04:58:39 different results from plpgsql functions related to last changes in master