Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs
Date: 2019-04-08 04:37:16
Message-ID: f97dac14-38d2-d0c8-2cd8-794657521025@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019/04/08 1:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> This test script works fine in HEAD:
>>> In v11, it suffers an assertion failure in ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting.
>>> In v10, it doesn't crash, but we do get
>>> WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "parttbl" not closed
>
>> What we did in the following commit is behind this:
>> commit 58947fbd56d1481a86a03087c81f728fdf0be866
>> Before this commit, partitioning related code in the executor could
>> always rely on the fact that ModifyTableState.resultRelInfo[] only
>> contains *leaf* partitions. As of this commit, it may contain the
>> root partitioned table in some cases, which breaks that assumption.
>
> Ah. Thanks for the diagnosis and patches; pushed.

Thank you.

> I chose to patch HEAD similarly to v11, even though no bug manifests
> right now; it seems safer that way. We should certainly have the
> test case in HEAD, now that we realize there wasn't coverage for this.

Agreed, thanks for taking care of that.

Regards,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-04-08 04:38:44 Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation
Previous Message Nagaura, Ryohei 2019-04-08 04:32:34 RE: Timeout parameters