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 1nmbno-0001jY-Uh for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 May 2022 13:45:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nmbmn-0001xS-NG for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 May 2022 13:44:53 +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 1nmbmn-0001pw-Et for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 May 2022 13:44:53 +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 1nmbme-000444-EX for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 May 2022 13:44:48 +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 245Diets2679379; Thu, 5 May 2022 09:44:40 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: vyegorov@gmail.com cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17474: Segmentation fault from INSERT ( JumbleExpr ) In-reply-to: <17474-60868309e99b1fca@postgresql.org> References: <17474-60868309e99b1fca@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Thu, 05 May 2022 12:10:19 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2679377.1651758280.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 09:44:40 -0400 Message-ID: <2679378.1651758280@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk PG Bug reporting form writes: > Quite simple setup, that works on 13 version, is causing SEGFAULTs on 14.2. > Reproducible. Can you provide a reproducer SQL script? The stack trace looks like some element of the VALUES list is not in the format that JumbleExpr is expecting, but there's nothing odd-looking about the fragment you showed. regards, tom lane