| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bug when apply fast default mechanism for adding new column over domain with default value |
| Date: | 2025-04-02 01:05:48 |
| Message-ID: | 706572.1743555948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I've discovered that 95f650674 introduced a defect similar to bug #18297,
> but this time with DEFAULT. Namely, the following script:
> CREATE TABLE a (aa text);
> CREATE TABLE c (cc text) INHERITS (a);
> CREATE TABLE d (dd text) INHERITS (c, a);
> ALTER TABLE a ADD COLUMN i int DEFAULT 1;
> fails with:
> ERROR: XX000: tuple already updated by self
> LOCATION: simple_heap_update, heapam.c:4421
Hmm, yeah. The failing call is here:
/* Bump the existing child att's inhcount */
...
CatalogTupleUpdate(attrdesc, &tuple->t_self, tuple);
so I think you're right that that code path is now short a
CommandCounterIncrement() somewhere. I'll look tomorrow if
nobody beats me to it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-04-02 01:06:22 | Re: Add mention in docs about locking all partitions for generic plans |
| Previous Message | Kwangwon Seo | 2025-04-02 00:18:19 | Covering the comparison between date and timestamp, tz, type |