> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:11:05PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:59:31AM +0000, Poot, Bas (B.J.) wrote:
> >
> > Finally! I have a testcase for you guys. This is my query to generate the data.
> > select *
> > into tmp_bug2
> > from (
> > select 'thing' as logical_name
> > , 'thing' as display_name
> > , 'thing' as operation
> > , '{"unit": "Our special Unit", "some.place": "placename", "place_of_birth": "Over the rainbow",
"How_secret_is_it":"Level 1", "Does.it.shoot": "YES!"}'::jsonb as filtur
> > from generate_series(1, 302443)
> > ) t1;
> >
> > And this is the query that generates the error.
> >
> > select
> > display_name
> > ,'' as x
> > ,filtur
> > ,jsonb_each_text(filtur) as x
> > ,to_jsonb(jsonb_each_text(filtur)) as frows
> > ,array(SELECT jsonb_object_keys(filtur)) as objectkeys
> > from tmp_bug2
> > order by logical_name;
> >
> > Notice that when you generate not 302443 but 302442 rows, it works perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks for posting the test case, I can reproduce it on the master
> branch as well (also without the second call to jsonb_each_text in line
> with to_jsonb). Interesting, it looks like for unclear to me reasons the
> argument, evaluated in ExecMakeFunctionResultSet for jsonb_each_text,
> contains value from the previous attribute, not jsonb. This makes
> iteratorFromContainer complain because both array & object flags are set
> in the header. I'll try to investigate, unless someone else will be
> faster.
Here is what I've found so far:
* It seems that technically the regression was introduced in
ea190ed14b, but not directly, via using gather paths in more
situations.
* The direct problem is that JsonbIteratorInit is confused by the
argument, because it contains both headers for array and object set.
From what I understood this confusion stems from
ExecMakeFunctionResultSet taking wrong value from the slot. Hacking it
to use different attnum in this case makes it work.
* The explanation for this could be that target list from where attnum
is taken and slot values have different order of elements. This in
turn comes out of grouping planner trying to isolate SRF and SRF-free
targets and as a result changing the order of elements in
final_target. The final_target is then passed into
create_ordered_paths and applied via apply_projection_to_path, but
somehow goes in disagreement with what is used while creating the slot
with values.
If this analysis is correct, I'm not sure yet what would be the best
course of action to address the problem, need to think a bit more. But
probably others have suggestions or comments?