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 1qD9Ip-0003HQ-Lc for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:52:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qD9In-0001Sl-Ny for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:52:09 +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 1qD9In-0001Sc-Fj for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:52:09 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qD9Ig-000GgS-Ln for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:52:08 +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 35OJpxrc285548; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:51:59 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement In-reply-to: <17995-9f20ff3e6389db4c@postgresql.org> References: <17995-9f20ff3e6389db4c@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Sat, 24 Jun 2023 18:33:27 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <285546.1687636319.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:51:59 -0400 Message-ID: <285547.1687636319@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: > --- Test case --- > create table t1 (pkey int4, c7 float8, c8 text, c9 float8); > insert into t1 (pkey, c7, c8, c9) values (96000, 0.0, '3n@', -79.14); > update t1 set c7 = t1.c9 / t1.c7 where 'a' @@ repeat(t1.c8, t1.pkey); Hmm, I don't think this is about the UPDATE per se, it's about not having a stack depth check in TParserGet() :-( regards, tom lane