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 ) id 1tzzog-009l9f-Vr for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:15:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tzzof-00EbFp-9R for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:15:45 +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 ) id 1tzzoe-00EbFc-W2 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:15:44 +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 ) id 1tzzod-002ZQh-18 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:15:44 +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 532FFf7L876697; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:15:41 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Tender Wang cc: Alexander Lakhin , jian he , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: bug when apply fast default mechanism for adding new column over domain with default value In-reply-to: References: <2901599.1740811424@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3086966.1740873261@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3519325.1740953319@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3664075.1741018726@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4060266.1741027118@sss.pgh.pa.us> <025a3ffa-5eff-4a88-97fb-8f583b015965@gmail.com> <706572.1743555948@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tender Wang message dated "Wed, 02 Apr 2025 10:01:31 +0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <876695.1743606941.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 11:15:41 -0400 Message-ID: <876696.1743606941@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Tender Wang writes: > So let's add CommandCounterIncrement() after calling StoreAttrMissingVal(). Pushed with minor editorialization. I thought for a bit about whether the CCI call should be inside StoreAttrMissingVal; but its cohorts in heap.c don't do their own CCI calls, so this way seems the least surprising. regards, tom lane