From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pavel Biryukov <79166341370(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
Date: | 2021-04-23 01:05:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHs1DpBi5m3v1PYhw9YkaHZJaNN9Of=6Z8wAEUn9qqY3Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:10 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> In the meantime, if the back branches fail with something like
> >> "virtual tuple table slot does not have system attributes" when
> >> trying to do this, that's not great but I'm not sure we should
> >> be putting effort into improving it.
>
> > Got it. That sounds like an acceptable compromise.
>
> Hm, we're not done with this. Whatever you think of the merits of
> throwing an implementation-level error, what's actually happening
> in v12 and v13 in the wake of a71cfc56b is that an attempt to do
> "RETURNING xmin" works in a non-cross-partition UPDATE, but in
> a cross-partition UPDATE it dumps core.
Thanks for fixing this.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2021-04-23 01:50:12 | Re: BUG #16967: Extremely slow update statement in trigger |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2021-04-23 00:13:41 | BUG #16978: Nested CTEs give ERROR in v13 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-04-23 01:08:16 | Re: problem with RETURNING and update row movement |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-04-23 00:51:40 | Re: wal stats questions |