| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17076: Server crashes on composing an error message about invalid modulus for a new table partition |
| Date: | 2021-06-29 18:36:52 |
| Message-ID: | 485564.1624991812@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I think the patch has got more problems than that too, as it's far
>>> from clear why the next remainder would have anything to do with the
>>> next larger modulus.
> Yes. Though, I think the problem is that the code uses
> boundinfo->indexes[<offset>] as an index into partdesc->oids[] array
> to get the existing partition to show in the error message. The
> correct thing here would be to use <offset> directly. That is because
> the hash partition bounds as laid out in boudinfo->datums[] correspond
> one-to-one with the partition OIDs laid out in partdesc->oids[].
Got it. Pushed your fix, along with some twiddling of the nearby
comments which seemed a bit vague.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-06-29 20:22:27 | Re: BUG #17066: Cache lookup failed when null (unknown) is passed as anycompatiblemultirange |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-06-29 07:11:51 | Re: BUG #17076: Server crashes on composing an error message about invalid modulus for a new table partition |