Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1u3duH-0016r2-2E
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 16:40:37 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1u3duE-006mGQ-GF
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 16:40:34 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1u3duE-006mGI-7d
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 16:40:34 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1u3duC-004V0h-2p
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2025 16:40:33 +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 53CGeSGh362682;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2025 12:40:28 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Vinod Sridharan <vsridh90@gmail.com>
cc: niek.brasa@hitachienergy.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18831: Particular queries using gin-indexes are not
 interruptible, resulting is resource usage concerns.
In-reply-to: 
 <CAFMdLD58WJPn_Jxc3KafrZsuVSRFiXX9y3F-05-1Du25x76Usw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18831-e845ac44ebc5dd36@postgresql.org>
 <474911.1741207802@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFMdLD7XzsXfi1+DpTqTgrD8XU0i2C99KuF=5VHLWjx4C1pkcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1026035.1744415680@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFMdLD4SC1=NDOHL-LOAonb6aycv2D1MGbwdiT3M9=A7SfiXow@mail.gmail.com>
 <1098251.1744426831@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFMdLD4Ks5b=CbBh1PjFSytm0zdNv9-ddyeE+opusAKCVph7=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1126691.1744435987@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFMdLD58WJPn_Jxc3KafrZsuVSRFiXX9y3F-05-1Du25x76Usw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Vinod Sridharan <vsridh90@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 11 Apr 2025 22:58:52 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <362680.1744476028.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 12:40:28 -0400
Message-ID: <362681.1744476028@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-bugs.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-bugs-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-bugs>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/362681.1744476028%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Vinod Sridharan <vsridh90@gmail.com> writes:
> I managed to get a test that fails without my patch, and added it to
> the intarray tests. Without the patch, the query returns 0 records.
> With my patch, the results are correct (12 records).

Cool, thanks.

> Please find attached the updated patch with a fix & a test in the
> intarray contrib. Thanks for the pointer to the contrib extensions.

Pushed with light editorialization.  I noticed one other bug in the
same area: shimTriConsistentFn wasn't paying attention to the recheck
flag returned by its first call to the underlying consistentFn.
I think this is probably just a latent issue, because if any of the
later calls return recheck = true we'll end with the correct
result anyway.  And at least for the contrib modules that depend
on this, the recheck flag doesn't depend on the key-presence inputs.
But it's theoretically possible we'd get the wrong answer.

			regards, tom lane