| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |
| Date: | 2022-04-20 03:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | Yl96l0Ay/F8uq4u9@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:06:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:47:07AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >>
> >> AFAICT the problem is that SET / RESET part is messing with the
> >> HeapTuple, so you can't use the procForm reference afterwards. Simply
> >> processing parallel_item before set_items fixes the problem, as in the
> >> attached.
>
> > This time with the file.
>
> Yeah, I arrived at the same fix. Another possibility would be to
> make the procForm pointer valid again after heap_modify_tuple,
> but that seemed like it'd add more code for no really good reason.
Yeah I agree. The comment you added seems enough as a future-proof security.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-20 03:15:18 | Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-20 03:06:30 | Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |