| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18135: Incorrect memory access occurs when attaching a partition with an index |
| Date: | 2023-09-28 17:31:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1043711.1695922299@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> The function CompareIndexInfo() contains the code:
> /* ignore expressions at this stage */
> if ((info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] != InvalidAttrNumber) &&
> (attmap->attnums[info2->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] - 1] !=
> info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i]))
> return false;
> where info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] is checked for InvalidAttrNumber
> (i. e. it's not an expression), but info2->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] is not.
Agreed, that's pretty broken, and it's not just that it risks an
invalid access. I don't think this reliably rejects cases where
one index has an expression and the other doesn't. Even if it does
work, it's way too complicated to convince oneself that that's
rejected. I think for clarity we should code it as attached.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-CompareIndexInfo.patch | text/x-diff | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-09-28 18:50:05 | Re: BUG #18139: Causing FATAL error on database using function last() or first() |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2023-09-28 17:02:51 | BUG #18139: Causing FATAL error on database using function last() or first() |