Re: Parallel worker error

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel worker error
Date: 2017-08-30 11:49:08
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JFug3fBo5ruVv+inD7eoSzTbcursSq3JB0zYW7BviNtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's quite possible that I don't understand the differences in "role" and
>> "session authorization", but it still looks like a bug to me. May be
>> SerializeGUCState() should check if SetRoleIsActive is true and only then
>> save the role information?
>
> Ugh. Well, this is definitely a bug, but I'm not sure if that's the right fix.
>

Yeah.

> Mutually interdependent GUCs are bad news.
>

I am able to reproduce this without involving session authorization
guc as well. One needs to drop the newly created role from another
session, then also we can see the same error.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-08-30 11:50:23 Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-30 11:47:45 Re: Parallel worker error