Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove overzealous array element type assertion.

  2. Enhance nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution.

  1. Assert failure in _bt_preprocess_array_keys

    Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> — 2024-04-22T02:36:13Z

    I came across an assert failure in _bt_preprocess_array_keys regarding
the sanity check on the datatype of the array elements.  It can be
reproduced with the query below.

create table t (c int4range);
create unique index on t (c);

select * from t where c in ('(1, 100]'::int4range, '(50, 300]'::int4range);

It fails on this Assert:

+               elemtype = cur->sk_subtype;
+               if (elemtype == InvalidOid)
+                       elemtype = rel->rd_opcintype[cur->sk_attno - 1];
+               Assert(elemtype == ARR_ELEMTYPE(arrayval));

... which was introduced in 5bf748b86b.

I didn't spend much time digging into it, but I wonder if this Assert is
sensible.  I noticed that before commit 5bf748b86b, the two datatypes
were not equal to each other either (anyrange vs. int4range).

Thanks
Richard

  2. Re: Assert failure in _bt_preprocess_array_keys

    Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2024-04-22T02:52:16Z

    On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:36 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't spend much time digging into it, but I wonder if this Assert is
> sensible.  I noticed that before commit 5bf748b86b, the two datatypes
> were not equal to each other either (anyrange vs. int4range).

The assertion is wrong. It is testing behavior that's much older than
commit 5bf748b86b, though. We can just get rid of it, since all of the
information that we'll actually apply when preprocessing scan keys
comes from the operator class.

Pushed a fix removing the assertion just now. Thanks for the report.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

  3. Re: Assert failure in _bt_preprocess_array_keys

    Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> — 2024-04-22T06:22:25Z

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:52 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:36 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I didn't spend much time digging into it, but I wonder if this Assert is
> > sensible.  I noticed that before commit 5bf748b86b, the two datatypes
> > were not equal to each other either (anyrange vs. int4range).
>
> The assertion is wrong. It is testing behavior that's much older than
> commit 5bf748b86b, though. We can just get rid of it, since all of the
> information that we'll actually apply when preprocessing scan keys
> comes from the operator class.
>
> Pushed a fix removing the assertion just now. Thanks for the report.


That's so quick.  Thank you for the prompt fix.

Thanks
Richard