Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug
Date
Msg-id Yl96l0Ay/F8uq4u9@jrouhaud
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:06:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:47:07AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >> 
> >> AFAICT the problem is that SET / RESET part is messing with the
> >> HeapTuple, so you can't use the procForm reference afterwards.  Simply
> >> processing parallel_item before set_items fixes the problem, as in the
> >> attached.
> 
> > This time with the file.
> 
> Yeah, I arrived at the same fix.  Another possibility would be to
> make the procForm pointer valid again after heap_modify_tuple,
> but that seemed like it'd add more code for no really good reason.

Yeah I agree.  The comment you added seems enough as a future-proof security.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug