Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oIWpf-0006Y0-TK for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:55:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oIWpe-0000TU-La for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:55:46 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oIWpe-0000SD-CY for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:55:46 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oIWpc-00044C-BW for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:55:45 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 271EtcwJ1745217; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:55:38 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Richard Guo cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JXQs9C+0YAg0KfQuNC90LTRj9GB0LrQuNC9?= , Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: Re[2]: BUG #17561: Server crashes on executing row() with very long argument list In-reply-to: References: <20220729101411.7b45rvhlrsgcajjo@alvherre.pgsql> <3822706.1659113869@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1659338229.499665470@f479.i.mail.ru> Comments: In-reply-to Richard Guo message dated "Mon, 01 Aug 2022 18:51:26 +0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1745215.1659365738.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:55:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1745216.1659365738@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Richard Guo writes: > Just noticed that CheckAttributeNamesTypes will check on column count > against MaxHeapAttributeNumber. Maybe we should use this as the limit? Yeah, otherwise you'll get a very confusing message about too many columns in a *table*. Also, there are two levels we have to check at, per-function and then the merged tupdesc for the whole RTE. I should have thought of function RTEs when asserting that there were no other holes to plug :-(. Will fix, thanks for the report! regards, tom lane