Hi,
On 2021-04-22 14:21:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, we're not done with this. Whatever you think of the merits of
> throwing an implementation-level error, what's actually happening
> in v12 and v13 in the wake of a71cfc56b is that an attempt to do
> "RETURNING xmin" works in a non-cross-partition UPDATE, but in
> a cross-partition UPDATE it dumps core. What I'm seeing is that
> the result of the execute_attr_map_slot() call looks like
>
> (gdb) p *(BufferHeapTupleTableSlot*) scanslot
> $3 = {base = {base = {type = T_TupleTableSlot, tts_flags = 8, tts_nvalid = 3,
> tts_ops = 0xa305c0 <TTSOpsBufferHeapTuple>,
> tts_tupleDescriptor = 0x7f1c7798f920, tts_values = 0x2077100,
> tts_isnull = 0x2075fb0, tts_mcxt = 0x2015ea0, tts_tid = {ip_blkid = {
> bi_hi = 0, bi_lo = 0}, ip_posid = 3}, tts_tableOid = 37812},
> tuple = 0x0, off = 0, tupdata = {t_len = 0, t_self = {ip_blkid = {
> bi_hi = 0, bi_lo = 0}, ip_posid = 0}, t_tableOid = 0,
> t_data = 0x0}}, buffer = 0}
>
> and since base.tuple is NULL, heap_getsysattr dies on either
> "Assert(tup)" or a null-pointer dereference.
>
> So
>
> (1) It seems like this is exposing a shortcoming in the
> multiple-slot-types logic. It's not hard to understand why the slot would
> look like this after execute_attr_map_slot does ExecStoreVirtualTuple,
> but if this is not a legal state for a BufferHeapTuple slot, why didn't
> ExecStoreVirtualTuple raise a complaint?
I think it's too useful to support ExecStoreVirtualTuple() in a
heap[buffer] slot to disallow that. Seems like we should make
tts_buffer_heap_getsysattr() error out if there's no tuple?
> (2) It also seems like we can't use the srcSlot if we want to have
> the fail-because-its-a-virtual-tuple behavior. I experimented with
> doing ExecMaterializeSlot on the result of execute_attr_map_slot,
> and that stops the crash, but then we're returning garbage values
> of xmin etc, which does not seem good.
Garbage values as in 0's, or random data? Seems like it should be the
former?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
