| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Randall <srandall(at)s3(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Scan Bug: invalid attnum: 0 |
| Date: | 2016-11-10 15:49:35 |
| Message-ID: | 16043.1478792975@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Steve Randall <srandall(at)s3(dot)com> writes:
> I have been able to reproduce the error in my development environment.
> EXPLAIN output is attached. EXPLAIN ANALYZE fails with the error
> mentioned.
Ah, I've duplicated it. My previous attempt to reverse-engineer your
test case was not selecting a partial-aggregation plan.
Immediate impression is that the logic for planning partial grouped
aggregation did not get the zero-sort-keys case right. In my hands
it produces
TRAP: BadArgument("!(nkeys > 0)", File: "tuplesort.c", Line: 763)
2016-11-10 10:44:26.955 EST [14415] LOG: server process (PID 15726) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
but in a non-assert build of course you'd get some other misbehavior.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jg | 2016-11-10 16:12:47 | BUG #14417: Cache invalidation ? |
| Previous Message | Steve Randall | 2016-11-10 13:56:41 | Re: Parallel Scan Bug: invalid attnum: 0 |