Re: PG19 FK fast path: OOB write and missed FK checks during batched

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 14:02, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote

>
> Thanks for checking. I will review them a bit more closely before
> committing by Friday. Other reviews are welcome.
>

Thanks for the patch!

I read through v1-0001 and v1-0002 and tried them locally. I had a couple of
things I wanted to ask about.

1. The per-entry "flushing" flag and test coverage. If I'm reading the two
patches together correctly, with both applied the 64-row re-entry test in
0001
reaches the flush through ri_FastPathEndBatch(), where 0002's cache-wide
ri_fastpath_flushing guard already routes the re-entrant check to the
per-row
path before it gets back into ri_FastPathBatchAdd(). Does that mean the
per-entry flag from 0001 isn't really exercised by that test once 0002 is
in?
As far as I can tell you'd need the flush to fire from ri_FastPathBatchAdd()
itself (a 65th row) to reach it. I tried a 65-row variant (same FK,
re-entrant
DML from the cast during the full-batch flush), including a case where the
re-entrant row was an orphan, and it seemed to do the right thing; the
per-row fallback still raised the violation. Would it be worth switching
the
test to 65 rows, or adding that variant, so the per-entry guard is covered
too?
Or am I missing a path where the committed test already hits it?

2. Resetting ri_fastpath_flushing. I noticed it's cleared only in the
PG_FINALLY of ri_FastPathEndBatch(), which does seem to cover the cases I
could
think of. Since ri_FastPathXactCallback already NULLs ri_fastpath_cache and
clears ri_fastpath_callback_registered at transaction end, I wondered
whether
it might be worth clearing ri_fastpath_flushing there too, just as cheap
insurance against some future path that leaves it set across transactions
though maybe that's unnecessary given the PG_FINALLY.

Other than the above queries, the patch looks good to me.

Regards,
Ayush