Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)

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: Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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