Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Subject | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 2528807.1596648630@sss.pgh.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > The crash reported here is in the other case where the concurrently > added partitions cause the execution-time PartitionDesc to have more > partitions than the one that PartitionedRelPruneInfo is based on. > I was able to reproduce such a crash as follows: Yeah, I can repeat the case per these directions. I concur that the issue is that ExecCreatePartitionPruneState is failing to cope with zeroes in the relid_map. > The attached patch should fix that. I don't like this patch at all though; I do not think it is being nearly careful enough to ensure that it's matched the surviving relation OIDs correctly. In particular it blithely assumes that a zero in relid_map *must* match the immediately next entry in partdesc->oids, which is easy to break if the new partition is adjacent to the one the planner managed to prune. So I think we should do it more like the attached. I'm strongly tempted to convert the trailing Assert to an actual test-and-elog, too, but didn't do so here. regards, tom lane diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c index fb6ce49056..221a34e738 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c @@ -1673,7 +1673,19 @@ ExecCreatePartitionPruneState(PlanState *planstate, pprune->subpart_map = palloc(sizeof(int) * partdesc->nparts); for (pp_idx = 0; pp_idx < partdesc->nparts; ++pp_idx) { - if (pinfo->relid_map[pd_idx] != partdesc->oids[pp_idx]) + /* + * pinfo->relid_map can contain InvalidOid entries for + * partitions pruned by the planner. We cannot tell + * exactly which of the partdesc entries these correspond + * to, but we don't have to; just skip over them. The + * non-pruned relid_map entries, however, had better be a + * subset of the partdesc entries and in the same order. + */ + while (pd_idx < pinfo->nparts && + !OidIsValid(pinfo->relid_map[pd_idx])) + pd_idx++; + if (pd_idx >= pinfo->nparts || + pinfo->relid_map[pd_idx] != partdesc->oids[pp_idx]) { pprune->subplan_map[pp_idx] = -1; pprune->subpart_map[pp_idx] = -1; @@ -1686,6 +1698,14 @@ ExecCreatePartitionPruneState(PlanState *planstate, pinfo->subpart_map[pd_idx++]; } } + + /* + * It might seem that we need to skip any trailing InvalidOid + * entries in pinfo->relid_map before asserting that we + * scanned all of the relid_map. But we will have skipped + * them above, because they must correspond to some + * partdesc->oids entries; we just couldn't tell which. + */ Assert(pd_idx == pinfo->nparts); }
pgsql-hackers by date: