Re: BUG #18142: strange behaviour of "UPDATE" with id_encode()

Hi David,

that was so easy pick. Sorry, my mistake: I was relying on the fact that
the latest tag is <
https://github.com/iCyberon/pg_hashids/releases/tag/v1.2.1>, while in the
log there is a 1.3.

This solved the problem:
```
RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual .build-deps build-base postgresql-dev
clang15 llvm15 ; \
wget -qO-
https://github.com/iCyberon/pg_hashids/archive/cd0e1b31d52b394a0df64079406a14a4f7387cd6.tar.gz
| tar xzf - -C /tmp && \
make -C /tmp/pg_hashids-cd0e1b31d52b394a0df64079406a14a4f7387cd6 && \
make -C /tmp/pg_hashids-cd0e1b31d52b394a0df64079406a14a4f7387cd6
install && \
rm -rf /tmp/pg_hashids-cd0e1b31d52b394a0df64079406a14a4f7387cd6 && \
apk del .build-deps
```

Thank you for the eye opening. Problem solved.

Cheers,
DataSelfService team

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:02 PM David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Monday, October 2, 2023, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
>
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference: 18142
>> Logged by: DataSelfService Srl
>> Email address: info(at)dataselfservice(dot)com
>> PostgreSQL version: 15.4
>> Operating system: docker
>> Description:
>>
>> RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual .build-deps build-base postgresql-dev
>> clang15 llvm15 ; \
>> wget -qO-
>> https://github.com/iCyberon/pg_hashids/archive/refs/tags/v1.2.1.tar.gz |
>> tar
>> xzf - -C /tmp && \
>> make -C /tmp/pg_hashids-1.2.1 && \
>> make -C /tmp/pg_hashids-1.2.1 install && \
>> rm -rf /tmp/pg_hashids-1.2.1 && \
>> apk del .build-deps
>>
>>
> So you aren’t even using version 3 of that library and it’s read me
> doesn’t mention testing on anything earlier that 9.6.x. You are asking for
> help in the wrong place unless you can somehow demonstrate a problem that
> doesn’t depend on the output of this third-party library function.
>
> I’d at least see whether the most recent release of that library has the
> same problem.
>
> I see you did open an issue with them…I do get that the difference in
> behavior emanating from how the update is written is quite odd and
> seemingly not plausibly the fault of an extension. I assume the trigger is
> required to produce the error (if not, an example without it is much
> better). Or one with the trigger but a core function instead.
>
> David J.
>
>