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 1h4Ssy-0008IZ-8p for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:07:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h4Ssw-0002Ss-NE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:07:10 +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 1h4Ssw-0002Sl-FX for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:07:10 +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 1h4Ssu-00046F-51 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:07:10 +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 x2EG734c002332; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:07:03 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: tushar cc: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion at relnode.c In-reply-to: <7d72ab20-c725-3ce2-f99d-4e64dd8a0de6@enterprisedb.com> References: <7d72ab20-c725-3ce2-f99d-4e64dd8a0de6@enterprisedb.com> Comments: In-reply-to tushar message dated "Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:23:26 +0530" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <2330.1552579623.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:07:03 -0400 Message-ID: <2331.1552579623@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk tushar writes: > While running sqlsmith against 12devel, got the the following > assertion-  (issue is reproducible  on v10/v11 as well) > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(bms_is_subset(appendrel->lateral_relids, > required_outer))", File: "relnode.c", Line: 1521) Doesn't crash for me, but that's probably because I just fixed bug #15694, which looks like the same thing. Thanks for the report though! regards, tom lane