Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hCrv9-0008Cn-P5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:28:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hCrv6-0004F9-Sv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:28:08 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hCrv6-0004F2-KF for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:28:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hCrv2-00042k-K1 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:28:07 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x36KRxHY020711; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 16:27:59 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org cc: Amit Langote Subject: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20709.1554582479.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 16:27:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20710.1554582479@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk This test script works fine in HEAD: drop table if exists parttbl cascade; CREATE TABLE parttbl (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST (a); CREATE TABLE parttbl_1 PARTITION OF parttbl FOR VALUES IN (NULL,500,501,50= 2); UPDATE parttbl SET a =3D NULL, b =3D NULL WHERE a =3D 1600 AND b =3D 999; In v11, it suffers an assertion failure in ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting. In v10, it doesn't crash, but we do get WARNING: relcache reference leak: relation "parttbl" not closed which is surely a bug as well. (This is a boiled-down version of the script I mentioned in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13344.1554578481@sss.pgh.pa.us) This seems to be related to what Amit Langote complained of in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440= @lab.ntt.co.jp but since there's no foreign tables involved at all, either it's a different bug or he misdiagnosed what he was seeing. regards, tom lane