From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: xinwen@stu.scu.edu.cn, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17737: An assert failed in execExprInterp.c
In-reply-to: <2811897.1672951803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17737-55a063e3e6c41b4f@postgresql.org>
 <2811897.1672951803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:50:03 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2828933.1672954428.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:33:48 -0500
Message-ID: <2828934.1672954428@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2828934.1672954428%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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