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

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:05:06PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 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.

Looks sensible here, for the HEAD and v17 flavors.

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

Except waiting for the OP to actually test the fix, I'm not sure if
there is much that we can do.  Anyway, the stack that one gets with
the isolation test is very close to what the OP has reported, so I'm
ready to bet a coffee that you have been able to narrow this one down.

I have also raised an issue to timescale to make them aware of the
issue.  I have no idea if this is an issue for them, just acting as a
reporter:
https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/issues/8392
--
Michael