On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:59 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:39 PM James Pang (chaolpan)
> <chaolpan@cisco.com> wrote:
> > (gdb) p RecordCacheArray
> > $1 = (TupleDesc *) 0x7f5fac365d90
> > (gdb) p RecordIdentifierArray
> > $2 = (uint64 *) 0x0
>
> Hah, yeah that's it, and you've been extremely unlucky to hit it.
> ensure_record_cache_typmod_slot_exists() should be more careful about
> cleaning up on allocation failure, to avoid this state.
I think the lazy fix would be to re-order those allocations. A
marginally more elegant fix would be to merge the arrays, as in the
attached. Thoughts?