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 1qBpBf-0000Z2-R7 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 04:11:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qBpBd-00042a-RL for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 04:11:17 +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 1qBpBd-0003zR-J1 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 04:11:17 +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 1qBpBX-003kU0-1P for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 04:11:17 +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 35L4B5273689742; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:11:05 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Tomas Vondra cc: zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17986: Inconsistent results of SELECT affected by btree index In-reply-to: References: <17986-6ebf8b5d2c3a4f6e@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to Tomas Vondra message dated "Wed, 21 Jun 2023 01:40:56 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3689740.1687320665.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:11:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3689741.1687320665@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Tomas Vondra writes: > On 6/20/23 22:54, PG Bug reporting form wrote: >> My fuzzer finds a correctness bug in Postgres, which makes Postgres return >> inconsistent results. > I can't reproduce this with current master - perhaps one of the commits > since efeb12ef0b fixes this too? It looks like this is another manifestation of the hashjoin bug fixed in 45392626c. regards, tom lane