| From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Crash in BRIN summarization |
| Date: | 2019-08-28 11:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAE2gYzxyt2bU9zCxQHqvKnqHYrtq-rVjDruk_vFvwGV5x8_0tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thank you for your fix.
> This assumes that the merge function returns a newly-palloc'd value.
> That's a shaky assumption; if one of the arguments is an empty range,
> range_merge() returns the other argument, rather than a newly
> constructed value. And surely we can't assume assume that for
> user-defined opclasses.
Your analysis looks right to me.
> brin_inclusion_union() has a similar issue, but I didn't write a script
> to reproduce that. Fix attached.
I am not sure about this part. If it's okay to use col_a->bv_values
without copying, it should also be okay to use col_b->bv_values, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2019-08-28 11:12:01 | Re: Performance improvement of WAL writing? |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-08-28 10:49:17 | Re: A problem about partitionwise join |