Re: search_plan_tree(): handling of non-leaf CustomScanState nodes causes segfault
От | David Geier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: search_plan_tree(): handling of non-leaf CustomScanState nodes causes segfault |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3ad851cf-ce22-ace0-726d-56209e214981@swarm64.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: search_plan_tree(): handling of non-leaf CustomScanState nodes causes segfault (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: search_plan_tree(): handling of non-leaf CustomScanState nodes causes segfault
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 18.01.21 19:46, Tom Lane wrote: > David Geier <david@swarm64.com> writes: >> search_plan_tree() assumes that >> CustomScanState::ScanState::ss_currentRelation is never NULL. In my >> understanding that only holds for CustomScanState nodes which are at the >> bottom of the plan and actually read from a relation. CustomScanState >> nodes which are not at the bottom don't have ss_currentRelation set. I >> believe for such nodes, instead search_plan_tree() should recurse into >> CustomScanState::custom_ps. > Hm. I agree that we shouldn't simply assume that ss_currentRelation > isn't null. However, we cannot make search_plan_tree() descend > through non-leaf CustomScan nodes, because we don't know what processing > is involved there. We need to find a scan that is guaranteed to return > rows that are one-to-one with the cursor output. This is why the function > doesn't descend through join or aggregation nodes, and I see no argument > by which we should assume we know more about what a customscan node will > do than we know about those. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. > > So I'm inclined to think a suitable fix is just > > - if (RelationGetRelid(sstate->ss_currentRelation) == table_oid) > + if (sstate->ss_currentRelation && > + RelationGetRelid(sstate->ss_currentRelation) == table_oid) > result = sstate; > > regards, tom lane > > I updated the patch to match your proposal. Best regards, David Swarm64
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: