Re: BUG #19055: Server crash at ExecInterpExpr
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: dllggyx@outlook.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-09-17T18:02:09Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Calculate agglevelsup correctly when Aggref contains a CTE.
- e830896c16ee 17.7 landed
- b649ef2446a4 13.23 landed
- b0cc0a71e0a0 19 (unreleased) landed
- afd18f27615b 15.15 landed
- 7df74e635e65 16.11 landed
- 4eab456494e3 18.0 landed
- 31bf0963208f 14.20 landed
Attachments
- fix-agglevelsup-calculation-with-CTEs.patch (text/x-diff) patch
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> PoC:
> SELECT FROM ( SELECT generate_series ( 1 , '31' ) x ) GROUP BY ( x ) WINDOW
> w AS ( ORDER BY ( WITH x AS ( WITH x AS ( SELECT sum ( x ) ) SELECT DISTINCT
> * FROM x ) ( SELECT ( count ( ( SELECT x FROM x ) ) ) ) ) )
Interesting example. De-obfuscating a little bit, we have
SELECT 1 FROM ( SELECT generate_series ( 1 , '31' ) gs ) ss
GROUP BY ( gs )
WINDOW w AS ( ORDER BY (
WITH x1 AS -- MATERIALIZED
( WITH x2 AS ( SELECT sum ( gs ) )
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM x2 )
SELECT ( count ( ( SELECT gs FROM x1 ) ) )
) );
If you stick in MATERIALIZED where I show, then instead of an
executor assertion failure you get
ERROR: could not find CTE "x1"
which is also what happens in branches pre-dating default inlining
of CTEs.
The problem appears to be that the count() aggregate is assigned the
wrong agglevelsup: it's labeled with agglevelsup = 1, implying that
it belongs to the outer query level (which is where its "gs" input
comes from). Then when we try to pull it up to the outer level,
the contained reference to the x1 CTE becomes dangling --- the planner
can't find any x1 in that level. Or, if we don't say MATERIALIZED,
the planner tries to inline x1 and just botches things entirely.
I suspect it's getting confused about which level "sum(gs)"
belongs to, but I didn't bother running down the details.
In any case, this is the parser's fault. Because the count()
references x1, it should not be given an agglevelsup higher than
where x1 is. The attached seems to fix it. I need to think
of a test case with less extraneous crud, though...
Thanks for the report!
regards, tom lane