Horton

Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-04-20T03:14:31Z
Lists: pgsql-general 
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:06:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:47:07AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >> 
> >> AFAICT the problem is that SET / RESET part is messing with the
> >> HeapTuple, so you can't use the procForm reference afterwards.  Simply
> >> processing parallel_item before set_items fixes the problem, as in the
> >> attached.
> 
> > This time with the file.
> 
> Yeah, I arrived at the same fix.  Another possibility would be to
> make the procForm pointer valid again after heap_modify_tuple,
> but that seemed like it'd add more code for no really good reason.

Yeah I agree.  The comment you added seems enough as a future-proof security.

Commits

  1. Fix breakage in AlterFunction().