| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, y(at)lll(dot)gd, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution |
| Date: | 2025-07-16 10:48:55 |
| Message-ID: | aHeDl-0OuIA-MJtt@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:42:33AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Attached is a reproducer using the merge-match-recheck isolation test.
>
> I believe that the bug only goes back to v17, because MERGE could not
> appear inside a CTE prior to that.
That was fast, nice!
> I think that best thing to do is pass the commandType to
> ExecBRUpdateTriggers(), except that in v17 we shouldn't change the
> signature of ExecBRUpdateTriggers(), so a wrapper function will be
> needed, similar to what 9321c79 did.
Yes, changing ExecBRUpdateTriggers() would not be a good idea on a
stable branch.. I can see that at least timescaledb does a direct
call to it. A minor upgrade breakage would be bad for them.
> Question: Is it OK to change the signature of ExecBRUpdateTriggers()
> in v18?
We are still in beta, so that's not a problem for v18 and HEAD.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-07-16 13:05:06 | Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-07-16 10:42:33 | Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution |