| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c | 
| Date: | 2015-07-27 14:28:47 | 
| Message-ID: | 25498.1438007327@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I've fixed the first two of these --- thanks for the report!
> I let sqlsmith run during the night, and it did no longer trigger the
> first two.  During roughly a million random queries it triggered the
> already mentioned brin one 10 times, but there was also one instance of
> this new one in the log:
Oh goody, more fun. I'll take a look.
>> I'm a bit confused about this aspect of your report though, because in
>> my hands that example fails clear back to 9.2.  It doesn't seem to require
>> the predtest.c improvement to expose the fault.
> Hmm, I actually used a different, uglier query to trigger this assertion
> for the bisection run.
Ah, okay.  The triggering condition for both those cases is
provably-contradictory restriction clauses on an inheritance relation.
In what you showed yesterday, that was something like "x < x AND x IS
NULL", which the planner has been able to recognize as contradictory
for a long time because "<" is strict.  (It did not, and still doesn't,
notice that "x < x" all by itself is contradictory...).  But here it
looks like the trigger is
from public.b as rel4551420
where ( rel4551420.bb>rel4551420.bb ) and ( rel4551420.bb<rel4551420.bb )
It was the recent predtest improvements that allowed recognition that
bb < bb contradicts bb > bb.  So that's why this run started to fail
there, even though the bug it was tickling is much older.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2015-07-27 15:10:55 | Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag | 
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-07-27 14:22:32 | Re: Buildfarm failure from overly noisy warning message |