| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRAP: failed Assert("offsets[i] > offsets[i - 1]"), File: "tidstore.c" |
| Date: | 2026-04-17 21:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | ea7bd70e-212d-42ae-9677-72f2f5493f3c@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 16/04/2026 19:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 1:26 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/04/2026 10:11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 12:13 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> -- Random TIDs test. The offset numbers are randomized and must be --
>>> unique and ordered. INSERT INTO hideblocks (blockno) SELECT
>>> do_set_block_offsets(blkno, array_agg(DISTINCT greatest((random() *
>>> :maxoffset)::int, 1))::int2[]) FROM generate_series(1, 100)
>>> num_offsets, generate_series(1000, 1100, 1) blkno GROUP BY blkno;
>>
>> Alright, I used an explicit sort in reverse order to make sure the test is
>> stable. I usually create modules that may change different paths, costs, and
>> orders, and using random can make things unpredictable. But for this specific
>> test, I don't see any risk.
>>
>>>
>>> While I agree that we need to sort the offset numbers, I think it
>>> would be better to make sure the offset numbers in the array to be
>>> sorted in a test_tidstore.sql file where required, instead of doing so
>>> for all cases.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that do_set_block_offsets shouldn't sort
>> the incoming offsets?
>
> No, I wanted to mean that if we sort the given array in
> do_set_block_offsets() as the proposed patch does, we end up always
> sorting arrays even if the sorting is no actually required (e.g., when
> executing "SELECT do_set_block_offsets(1,
> array[1,2,3,4,100]::int2[]);"). So an alternative idea to stabilize
> the regression test would be to create a SQL function to return a list
> of sorted offsets and use it where it's required. While the patch gets
> a little bigger, It would also help simplify the tests somewhat by
> removing the redundant codes. I've attached the patch for this idea.
Ok. No objections. Both changes are just test routines registered by the
test_tidstore module.
I decided to add C code, mostly following the idea that we reuse examples from
the Postgres codebase when writing our patches/extensions. An explicit
demonstration of the sort contract on the TidStoreSetBlockOffsets() call might
help developers who don't read function comments each time.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2026-04-19 17:57:59 | BUG #19460: FULL JOIN rewriting issue on empty queries |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2026-04-17 19:14:49 | Re: PostgreSQL 17: Bug in libpq when libpq is dlopened/closed multiple times |