Thread: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
vcolborn@gmail.com
Date:
VGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBidWcgaGFzIGJlZW4gbG9nZ2VkIG9uIHRoZSB3ZWJz aXRlOgoKQnVnIHJlZmVyZW5jZTogICAgICAxNDQwOApMb2dnZWQgYnk6ICAg ICAgICAgIFZpY3RvciBDb2xib3JuCkVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3M6ICAgICAgdmNv bGJvcm5AZ21haWwuY29tClBvc3RncmVTUUwgdmVyc2lvbjogOS42LjEKT3Bl cmF0aW5nIHN5c3RlbTogICAoUmVkIEhhdCA0LjQuNy0xNiksIDY0LWJpdApE ZXNjcmlwdGlvbjogICAgICAgIAoKSSdtIGZpbmRpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHJh dGhlciBzaW1wbGUgcG9zdGdyZXNxbCA5LjYuMSBmdW5jdGlvbg0KDQpDUkVB VEUgT1IgUkVQTEFDRSBGVU5DVElPTiB0cnlpbmdfdG9faW5kZXhfbWUoKQ0K UkVUVVJOUyBWT0lEICBBUw0KJEJPRFkkDQogICAgQkVHSU4NCiAgICBDUkVB VEUgVGVtcG9yYXJ5IFRBQkxFIHRlbXBfZGF0YV90b19pbmRleCAoIA0KICAg ICAgICBpZCBJTlRFR0VSIE5PVCBOVUxMLCAgICANCiAgICAgICAgdGhpc19p ZCBVVUlEIE5PVCBOVUxMLA0KICAgICAgICB0aGF0X2lkIHNtYWxsaW50IE5P VCBOVUxMLA0KICAgICAgICBDT05TVFJBSU5UIGlkeF90ZW1wX2RhdGFfdG9f aW5kZXhfdW5pcXVlDQogICAgICAgICAgICBVTklRVUUgKGlkLHRoaXNfaWQs dGhhdF9pZCkgICAgIA0KICAgICk7IA0KICAgIENSRUFURSBJTkRFWCBpZHhf dGVtcF9kYXRhX3RvX2luZGV4X3RoaXN0aGF0IE9OCnRlbXBfZGF0YV90b19p bmRleCh0aGlzX2lkLHRoYXRfaWQpOyAgDQogICAgRFJPUCBUQUJMRSB0ZW1w X2RhdGFfdG9faW5kZXg7DQpFTkQ7DQokQk9EWSQgTEFOR1VBR0UgcGxwZ3Nx bCBWT0xBVElMRSBDT1NUIDEwMDsNCi0tU0VMRUNUIHRyeWluZ190b19pbmRl eF9tZSgpOw0KDQppcyByZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4gYSBzY2hlbWEgIiIgZG9lcyBu b3QgZXhpc3QgZXJyb3IuIFRoZSBleGFjdCBlcnJvciBpczoNCg0KRVJST1I6 ICBzY2hlbWEgIiIgZG9lcyBub3QgZXhpc3QNCkNPTlRFWFQ6ICBTUUwgc3Rh dGVtZW50ICJDUkVBVEUgSU5ERVggaWR4X3RlbXBfZGF0YV90b19pbmRleF90 aGlzdGhhdCBPTgp0ZW1wX2RhdGFfdG9faW5kZXgodGhpc19pZCx0aGF0X2lk KSINClBML3BnU1FMIGZ1bmN0aW9uIHRyeWluZ190b19pbmRleF9tZSgpIGxp bmUgMTAgYXQgU1FMIHN0YXRlbWVudA0KKioqKioqKioqKiBFcnJvciAqKioq KioqKioqICAgIA0KRVJST1I6IHNjaGVtYSAiIiBkb2VzIG5vdCBleGlzdA0K U1FMIHN0YXRlOiAzRjAwMA0KQ29udGV4dDogU1FMIHN0YXRlbWVudCAiQ1JF QVRFIElOREVYIGlkeF90ZW1wX2RhdGFfdG9faW5kZXhfdGhpc3RoYXQgT04K dGVtcF9kYXRhX3RvX2luZGV4KHRoaXNfaWQsdGhhdF9pZCkiDQpQTC9wZ1NR TCBmdW5jdGlvbiB0cnlpbmdfdG9faW5kZXhfbWUoKSBsaW5lIDEwIGF0IFNR TCBzdGF0ZW1lbnQNCg0KYW5kIG9jY3VycyByZWxpYWJseSBvbiB0aGUgc2Vj b25kIGFuZCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IGV4ZWN1dGlvbnMuIEN1dC9QYXN0aW5nIHRo ZQphYm92ZSBTUUwgY2h1bmsgcmVwcm9kdWNlcyB0aGUgZXJyb3IuLi5mb3Ig bWUuIFF1aXRlIGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaWYgdGhhdCdzCm5vdCB0aGUgY2FzZSBl bHNld2hlcmUuIEkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGNsdWVzOg0KDQpJdCB3 aWxsIGVycm9yIGNvbnNpc3RlbnRseSBvbmNlIGl0cyBpbi4NCkl0IGFsd2F5 cyBpbmRpY2F0ZXMgdGhlICdDUkVBVEUgSU5ERVgnIGxpbmUgYXMgdGhlIGN1 bHByaXQgb2YgZXJyb3IuDQpEZWNsYXJpbmcgdGhlIHBnX3RlbXAgdGVtcG9y YXJ5IHNjaGVtYSBhcyAnLi4uIE9OIHBnX3RlbXAudGVtcF9kYXRhX3RvX2lu ZGV4Ci4uLicgaGFzIG5vIGVmZmVjdC4NCkkgZmluZCB0aGF0IGlmIEkgZHJv cCB0aGUgZnVuY3Rpb24gYW5kIHJlY3JlYXRlIGl0LCBJJ2xsIGdldCBvbmUg ZXhlY3V0aW9uCmFuZCB0aGVuIHRoZSBlcnJvcmVkIHN0YXRlIHdpbGwgb2Nj dXIgYWdhaW4uDQpJbnNlcnRpbmcgcmVjb3JkcyBhbHNvIGhhZCBubyBlZmZl Y3Qgb24gdGhlIGVycm9yIHN0YXRlLg0KSSBmaW5kIHRoYXQgcmVtb3Zpbmcg ZWl0aGVyIGlkeF90ZW1wX2RhdGFfdG9faW5kZXhfdGhpc3RoYXQgb3IKaWR4 X3RlbXBfZGF0YV90b19pbmRleF91bmlxdWUgcmVzb2x2ZXMgdGhlIGlzc3Vl Lg0KSXQgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRoZSBuYW1lIG9mIHRoZSBub3QgZm91bmQgc2No ZW1hIHRvIGJlICIiIG9yICIwTUF7U3RhcnQgb2YKVGV4dH0CIiBvciBzb21l IHNpbWlsYXIgdmFyaWFudCB3aXRoIG5vbi12aXNpYmxlIGNoYXJhY3RlciB2 YWx1ZXMuDQpUcnVseSBhcHByZWNpYXRlIHlvdXIgdGhvdWdodHMuCgo=
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
Tom Lane
Date:
vcolborn@gmail.com writes:
> I'm finding that this rather simple postgresql 9.6.1 function
> ...
> is resulting in a schema "" does not exist error. The exact error is:
Hm. The described symptoms sound quite a bit like an uninitialized-memory
problem. However, I can't reproduce the problem here (using up-to-date
RHEL6), nor does valgrind complain about this example for me.
regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
Victor Colborn
Date:
I'm able to reproduce on 9.5.3 as well. Could it possibly related to a configuration setting (or some other common attribute) I can review/alter? Very much appreciate your time Tom. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > vcolborn@gmail.com writes: > > I'm finding that this rather simple postgresql 9.6.1 function > > ... > > is resulting in a schema "" does not exist error. The exact error is: > > Hm. The described symptoms sound quite a bit like an uninitialized-memory > problem. However, I can't reproduce the problem here (using up-to-date > RHEL6), nor does valgrind complain about this example for me. > > regards, tom lane >
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Victor Colborn <vcolborn@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm able to reproduce on 9.5.3 as well.
Oh, interesting.
> Could it possibly related to a configuration setting (or some other common
> attribute) I can review/alter?
Can't think what ... but what non-default settings are you using?
Is this a custom build of Postgres, or just an RPM (whose?)
regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:26 PM, <vcolborn@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 14408
> Logged by: Victor Colborn
> Email address: vcolborn@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.6.1
> Operating system: (Red Hat 4.4.7-16), 64-bit
> Description:
>
> I'm finding that this rather simple postgresql 9.6.1 function
> =E2=80=8B[...]
>
>
> is resulting in a schema "" does not exist error. The exact error is:
>
> =E2=80=8B[...]
>
>
> and occurs reliably on the second and subsequent executions. Cut/Pasting
> the
> above SQL chunk reproduces the error...for me. Quite interested if that's
> not the case elsewhere. I have the following clues:
>
> =E2=80=8B[...]=E2=80=8B
> It indicates the name of the not found schema to be "" or "0MA{Start of
> Text} " or some similar variant with non-visible character values.
>
=E2=80=8BMy gut reaction here is to type, by hand, the CREATE FUNCTION code=
into a
newly created text file and send it through psql. Your comment about
copy/paste and "non-visible characters" leads me to suspect that whatever
source you are copying from has been "poisoned" by a control character=E2=
=80=8B
that you can't see and that is causing a problem.
David J.
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
Victor Colborn
Date:
Good suggestion David. Tried that to no resolve. I am getting a successful f=
irst execution, but something is improper on subsequent executions.=20
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>=
wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:26 PM, <vcolborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>=20
>> Bug reference: 14408
>> Logged by: Victor Colborn
>> Email address: vcolborn@gmail.com
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.6.1
>> Operating system: (Red Hat 4.4.7-16), 64-bit
>> Description:
>>=20
>> I'm finding that this rather simple postgresql 9.6.1 function
>> =E2=80=8B[...]
>>=20
>> is resulting in a schema "" does not exist error. The exact error is:
>>=20
>> =E2=80=8B[...]
>>=20
>> and occurs reliably on the second and subsequent executions. Cut/Pasting t=
he
>> above SQL chunk reproduces the error...for me. Quite interested if that's=
>> not the case elsewhere. I have the following clues:
> =E2=80=8B[...]=E2=80=8B=20
>> It indicates the name of the not found schema to be "" or "0MA{Start of
>> Text} " or some similar variant with non-visible character values.
>=20
> =E2=80=8BMy gut reaction here is to type, by hand, the CREATE FUNCTION cod=
e into a newly created text file and send it through psql. Your comment abo=
ut copy/paste and "non-visible characters" leads me to suspect that whatever=
source you are copying from has been "poisoned" by a control character=E2=80=
=8B that you can't see and that is causing a problem.
>=20
> David J.
>=20
>=20
Re: BUG #14408: Schema not found error when 2 or more indices declared on temporary table
From
Victor Colborn
Date:
Both were executables downloaded from the PostgreSQL website and while I wou= ld suspect the configuration is fairly default, I'm not the only hands at wo= rk. The 9.5.3 install has been there a while. The 9.6.1 install is newer, ju= st a month or two.=20 I suspect my environment, configuration, or something specific to "my box" s= ince it isn't trivial to reproduce.=20 > On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >=20 > Victor Colborn <vcolborn@gmail.com> writes: >> I'm able to reproduce on 9.5.3 as well. >=20 > Oh, interesting. >=20 >> Could it possibly related to a configuration setting (or some other commo= n >> attribute) I can review/alter? >=20 > Can't think what ... but what non-default settings are you using? >=20 > Is this a custom build of Postgres, or just an RPM (whose?) >=20 > regards, tom lane