Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14657: Server process segmentationfault in v10, May 10th dev snapshot - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14657: Server process segmentationfault in v10, May 10th dev snapshot
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaxX5CqtSSyLY0cHcUn=TLrYm4O_TzYigwY=bH26SMMRw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14657: Server process segmentationfault in v10, May 10th dev snapshot  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> We still have the same copy shared across multiple append paths and
> set_plan_refs would change change it underneath those. May not be a
> problem right now but may be a problem in the future.

I agree.  I think it's better for the path-creation functions to copy
the list, so that there is no surprising sharing of substructure.
set_plan_refs() obviously expects this data to be unshared, and this
seems like the best way to ensure that's true in all cases.

Committed that way.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Preliminary results for proposed new pgindentimplementation
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternativehosts when some errors occur