Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:53:29 +0000
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Tighten asserts on ParallelWorkerNumber a little bit
Message-ID: <abPsqcdVKcaK3XNS@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
References: <5db067a1-2cdf-4afb-a577-a04f30b69167@vondra.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5db067a1-2cdf-4afb-a577-a04f30b69167@vondra.me>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/abPsqcdVKcaK3XNS%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 07:59:43PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While hacking on something I happened to notice a couple asserts on
> ParallelWorkerNumber when collecting shared instrumentation:
> 
>   Assert(ParallelWorkerNumber <= node->shared_info->num_workers);
> 
> This is not quire right, because num_workers is used to size arrays
> indexed by ParallelWorkerNumber. And the comment in parallel.c also
> claims (ParallelWorkerNumber < num_workers).
> 
> So AFAICS the assert(s) should be
> 
>   Assert(ParallelWorkerNumber < node->shared_info->num_workers);

I think that you're right. It looks like the first one has been introduced
by bf11e7ee2e3 and then the others are probably copy/paste.

> I don't think we had issues with this not catching a bug. But it may be
> a bit misleading, so worth fixing and (probably) backpatching.

I do agree.

With that patch applied, the remaining one:

$ git grep "<=.*num_workers"
src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c: Assert(nreaders <= castNode(GatherMerge, gm_state->ps.plan)->num_workers);

does not need to be fixed, so I think that your patch does not miss any and
LGTM.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com