From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG]: segfault during update
In-reply-to: <db5d97c8-f48a-51e2-7b08-b73d5434d425@amazon.com>
References: <db5d97c8-f48a-51e2-7b08-b73d5434d425@amazon.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
	message dated "Sun, 08 Nov 2020 17:30:15 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1831654.1604855899.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 12:18:19 -0500
Message-ID: <1831655.1604855899@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com> writes:
> Here is a scenario that produces segfault during update (on version 12 
> and 13):

Hm.  So the point about failing to reproduce dropped columns is more
critical than I thought.  I wonder how come we get away with that before
v12?

> So, we would need to back port this commit on 12 and 13.

Yeah, this is sufficient reason why we must use the more invasive
patch on those branches.  What I'm wondering now is if there's a
way to break even-older branches based on failure to handle dropped
columns here.

			regards, tom lane