Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs
От
Amit Langote
Тема
Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs
Дата
Msg-id
f97dac14-38d2-d0c8-2cd8-794657521025@lab.ntt.co.jp
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
On 2019/04/08 1:57, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата: