Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:02:25 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Cc: 1026592243@qq.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18377: Assert false in "partdesc->nparts >= pinfo->nparts",
 fileName="execPartition.c", lineNumber=1943
Message-ID: <202406110902.awejvctiva7n@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202406101532.g7bjnhxveuur@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202406110902.awejvctiva7n%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Jun-10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> Thanks for testing!  I've spend some more time playing with this, and I
> confirmed my fears that it's possible to hit the case where one
> partition is added and another is removed, so the count of partitions is
> the same, yet their OIDs don't match (problem [2] in my previous email).
> This means we're forced to memcmp() the arrays even when nparts match.
> We can reuse the maps if the partition OID arrays are bitwise identical,
> otherwise we map the partitions one by one into subpart_map / subplan_map.

... and actually, the code that maps partitions when these arrays don't
match is all wrong, because it assumes that they are in OID order, which
is not true, so I'm busy rewriting it.  More soon.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"After a quick R of TFM, all I can say is HOLY CR** THAT IS COOL! PostgreSQL was
amazing when I first started using it at 7.2, and I'm continually astounded by
learning new features and techniques made available by the continuing work of
the development team."
Berend Tober, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg01009.php