Re: BUG #17792: MERGE uses uninitialized pointer and crashes when target tuple is updated concurrently
От | Dean Rasheed |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17792: MERGE uses uninitialized pointer and crashes when target tuple is updated concurrently |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEZATCWTFjn6rCx3=NCQhVaRZyi-w=jj8OEmJx9Fb_em5dh4Ew@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17792: MERGE uses uninitialized pointer and crashes when target tuple is updated concurrently (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17792: MERGE uses uninitialized pointer and crashes when target tuple is updated concurrently
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 19:19, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: