From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17792: MERGE uses uninitialized pointer and crashes when target tuple is updated concurrently |
Date: | 2023-02-15 09:41:13 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCWTFjn6rCx3=NCQhVaRZyi-w=jj8OEmJx9Fb_em5dh4Ew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 19:19, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> I agree, this looks to be a good fix. However, I couldn't in a quick
> try reproduce the problem, so I haven't been able to verify it. I'll
> try to do that early tomorrow.
>
I did some more testing, and the fix looks good.
> (I also delete the XXX comment there.)
>
That makes sense. It's a bit inconsistent (though not related to this
bug) that a cross-partition update will return OK if the tuple was
concurrently deleted, so merge will think that it updated the tuple
and not try an insert action, whereas for a normal update it will try
an insert action if the tuple was concurrently deleted. The thing that
seems wrong there is that ExecUpdateAct() sets updateCxt->updated =
true for a cross-partition update regardless of whether it actually
executed the insert half of the update/move. In theory, that flag
could be set to false so that merge would know if the tuple was
concurrently deleted, though it's not clear if it's worth it.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robins Tharakan | 2023-02-15 11:16:50 | Re: BUG #17791: Assert on procarray.c |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-15 07:12:54 | Re: BUG #17789: process_pgfdw_appname() fails for autovacuum workers |