From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: xinwen@stu.scu.edu.cn
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17737: An assert failed in execExprInterp.c
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:33:48 -0500
Message-ID: <2828934.1672954428@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2811897.1672951803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17737-55a063e3e6c41b4f@postgresql.org>
<2811897.1672951803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> I'm kind of baffled as to how it's escaped detection for this long;
> maybe the assertion is overly tight, and the case actually works
> in non-assert builds?
A quick test says that indeed this example works in a non-assert
build. So that may explain the lack of previous reports. Whether
it'd be okay to weaken this check across-the-board isn't clear to me.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, xinwen@stu.scu.edu.cn, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17737: An assert failed in execExprInterp.c
In-Reply-To: <2828934.1672954428@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox