Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dean Rasheed
Тема Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution
Дата
Msg-id CAEZATCWZahtK-OT5fa2=8b=+BUuDtsspkvur4x8WkjgHbxJxkw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Ответы Re: BUG #18986: SIGSEGV in nodeModifyTable.c during Parallel Execution
Список pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 11:49, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> > 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.

Cool. I thought so, but I wanted to check.

Attached is a patch for HEAD/v18, and a slightly different one for
v17, preserving the trigger ABI in the standard way.

I decided to do this by adding an extra "is_merge_update" boolean
parameter, rather than passing the commandType because that looked
slightly neater. It was also necessary to update
ExecBRDeleteTriggers(), since otherwise a concurrent MERGE DELETE
could do the wrong thing (execute the wrong action, rather than
seg-faulting). That was picked up by an existing isolation test case
added by 9321c79, so no need for more tests.

I haven't tested this against the OP's reproducer.

Regards,
Dean

Вложения

В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: