Re: XX000: iso-8859-1 type of jsonb container. - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Dmitry Dolgov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: XX000: iso-8859-1 type of jsonb container. |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20210526135049.afseg47jmnqirqge@localhost Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: XX000: iso-8859-1 type of jsonb container. (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: XX000: iso-8859-1 type of jsonb container.
|
List | pgsql-bugs |
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:15:00PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:11:05PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:59:31AM +0000, Poot, Bas (B.J.) wrote: > > > > > > > > Finally! I have a testcase for you guys. This is my query to generate the data. > > > > select * > > > > into tmp_bug2 > > > > from ( > > > > select 'thing' as logical_name > > > > , 'thing' as display_name > > > > , 'thing' as operation > > > > , '{"unit": "Our special Unit", "some.place": "placename", "place_of_birth": "Over the rainbow", "How_secret_is_it":"Level 1", "Does.it.shoot": "YES!"}'::jsonb as filtur > > > > from generate_series(1, 302443) > > > > ) t1; > > > > > > > > And this is the query that generates the error. > > > > > > > > select > > > > display_name > > > > ,'' as x > > > > ,filtur > > > > ,jsonb_each_text(filtur) as x > > > > ,to_jsonb(jsonb_each_text(filtur)) as frows > > > > ,array(SELECT jsonb_object_keys(filtur)) as objectkeys > > > > from tmp_bug2 > > > > order by logical_name; > > > > > > > > Notice that when you generate not 302443 but 302442 rows, it works perfectly fine. > > > > > > Thanks for posting the test case, I can reproduce it on the master > > > branch as well (also without the second call to jsonb_each_text in line > > > with to_jsonb). Interesting, it looks like for unclear to me reasons the > > > argument, evaluated in ExecMakeFunctionResultSet for jsonb_each_text, > > > contains value from the previous attribute, not jsonb. This makes > > > iteratorFromContainer complain because both array & object flags are set > > > in the header. I'll try to investigate, unless someone else will be > > > faster. > > > > Here is what I've found so far: > > > > * It seems that technically the regression was introduced in > > ea190ed14b, but not directly, via using gather paths in more > > situations. > > > > * The direct problem is that JsonbIteratorInit is confused by the > > argument, because it contains both headers for array and object set. > > From what I understood this confusion stems from > > ExecMakeFunctionResultSet taking wrong value from the slot. Hacking it > > to use different attnum in this case makes it work. > > > > * The explanation for this could be that target list from where attnum > > is taken and slot values have different order of elements. This in > > turn comes out of grouping planner trying to isolate SRF and SRF-free > > targets and as a result changing the order of elements in > > final_target. The final_target is then passed into > > create_ordered_paths and applied via apply_projection_to_path, but > > somehow goes in disagreement with what is used while creating the slot > > with values. > > > > If this analysis is correct, I'm not sure yet what would be the best > > course of action to address the problem, need to think a bit more. But > > probably others have suggestions or comments? > > I couldn't find any other feasible explanations, and have come to a > conclusion that this happens when a projection is applied to a > GatherMerge path. As it's a projection capable path, no new projection > is created and target list is changed in place. In the subpath target > list ordering is different because of query ordering, and I don't see > where it all comes together during execution. Funny enough even explain > shows that the final plan passes a wrong values to jsonb_each_text. > > If I make GatherMerge non projection capable it fixes this particular > case and changes only one test in select_parallel (seems like a minor > plan changes). But I have not enough experience with this code to say if > it's a good or bad idea. Almost forgot about this one. It seems that the issue still could be reproduced on the latest master branch, so probably worth an open item.
pgsql-bugs by date: