| From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix "could not find memoization table entry" |
| Date: | 2026-03-24 01:10:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAHewXNkO0NO4+98=E=QodAUz_mkX2YOB0rD_C3Yz7o383aRhVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2026年3月24日周二 08:12写道:
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 at 19:30, Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Recently, I encountered an error: could not find memoization table
>
> > The hkeys returned by datum_image_hash() are different, so we can't
> > find the entry in the hash table.
> >
> > In the datum_image_hash(), if typByVal is true, calling
> > result = hash_bytes((unsigned char *) &value, sizeof(Datum));
> >
> > I think we should use typLen here, not sizeof(Datum).
> > I tried this way and didn't encounter any errors again.
>
> The Datum values should be the same. You can't just compare the lowest
> attlen bytes of a Datum.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Actually, I haven't quite figured out why `typLen` cannot be used here.
>
> It looks to me like the bug is in hash_numeric(). Seems like it has no
> idea what type it's meant to return. hash_numeric_extended() doesn't
> seem to be much better.
>
> Do you still get the ERROR after patching with the attached?
No error anymore with your patch.
--
Thanks,
Tender Wang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2026-03-24 01:16:47 | Re: [PATCH] no table rewrite when set column type to constrained domain |
| Previous Message | Henson Choi | 2026-03-24 01:05:28 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |