Re: BUG: PostgreSQL 19devel throws internal opfamily error for FK with reordered referenced columns

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:19 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 2:13 AM Matheus Alcantara
> <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu Apr 9, 2026 at 12:27 PM -03, Fredrik Widlert wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I believe I may have found a regression in PostgreSQL 19devel, downloaded
> > > on 2026-04-09
> > > from https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/snapshot/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.gz.
> > >
> > > postgres=# select version();
> > > version
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > PostgreSQL 19devel on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Ubuntu
> > > 13.2.0-23ubuntu4) 13.2.0, 64-bit
> > >
> > >
> > > With the reproducer below, PostgreSQL 18 reports a normal foreign-key
> > > violation
> > > at INSERT time, but PostgreSQL 19devel instead throws an internal-looking
> > > error:
> > >
> > > ERROR: operator 98 is not a member of opfamily 1976
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- reproducer:
> > > drop table if exists parent, child;
> > >
> > > create table parent (
> > > app_id varchar(256) not null,
> > > report_id smallint not null,
> > > otype integer not null,
> > > subtype integer not null,
> > > ctype integer not null,
> > > column_name varchar(30) not null,
> > > primary key (app_id, report_id, otype, subtype, ctype, column_name)
> > > );
> > >
> > > create table child (
> > > app_id varchar(256) not null,
> > > report_id smallint not null,
> > > otype integer not null,
> > > subtype integer not null,
> > > column_name varchar(30) not null,
> > > ctype integer,
> > > -- intentionally swapped: column_name, ctype
> > > constraint child_fk
> > > foreign key (app_id, report_id, otype, subtype, column_name, ctype)
> > > references parent (app_id, report_id, otype, subtype, column_name,
> > > ctype)
> > > );
> > >
> > >
> > > -- trigger the problem
> > > insert into child (app_id, report_id, otype, subtype, column_name, ctype)
> > > values ('DEFAULT_APP', 0, -1, -1, 'ID', -1);
> > >
> >
> > Hi, thanks for reporting the issue.
> >
> > This seems to be related to commit 2da86c1ef9b. The issue is that in
> > ri_populate_fastpath_metadata, the code uses idx_rel->rd_opfamily[i]
> > where i is the constraint key position, but it should find the actual
> > index column position for pk_attnums[i]. When FK columns are in a
> > different order than PK columns, the constraint key position doesn't
> > match the index column position.
>
> Yeah, I can reproduce the issue with a simplified version, that the FK/PK
> columns are in different order:
>
> drop table if exists parent, child;
>
> create table parent (
> app_id varchar(256) not null,
> report_id smallint not null,
> primary key (app_id, report_id)
> );
>
> create table child (
> app_id varchar(256) not null,
> report_id smallint not null,
> constraint child_fk
> foreign key (report_id, app_id)
> references parent (report_id, app_id)
> );
>
> insert into child (app_id, report_id) values ('DEFAULT_APP', 0);
>
> >
> > I didn't participate in the discussion of the feature but I studied the
> > code a little bit after it was committed, so I'm taking a try to fix
> > this issue with the attached patch, which seems to work for this case.
>
> It appears we overlooked this specific case while working on the
> feature. Your analysis looks correct to me, and I've tested the patch
> it behaves as expected. The test case you added should effectively
> guard against this bug.

Thanks Junwang for checking. I've just pushed this: 980c1a85d819.

Thanks Matheus again for the quick patch and Fredrik for the report.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote