Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause()

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, krking(at)zju(dot)edu(dot)cn, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause()
Date: 2022-05-09 18:15:04
Message-ID: CAD21AoDuQYcLmmPGe8-0ZoU=2VgvYAh1godFwYoNbSXe6TP0Qg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:20 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 5/9/22 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> It seems like transformValuesClause() cannot handle properly the value
> >> clause having a relation that has an empty column. Should we raise an
> >> error in this case?
> >
> > Given that we try to support zero-column relations, I'm not sure why
> > we'd insist on disallowing zero-column VALUES. I think the problem
> > is that the code in transformValuesClause needs to be tweaked to
> > make that work. The attached quick hack seems to do the trick.
>
> Agree with the reasoning.
>
> Confirmed reproducing the crash and that this fixes it. I did a short
> double-take on the error message:
>
> ERROR: subquery must return only one column
>
> but it is accurate, given this is what the subquery must do, and zero !=
> one.

Agreed. I've also confirmed that the patch fixes this issue and passed
the regression tests.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-05-09 18:33:38 Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-05-09 17:42:02 Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause()