Major breakage?

Tom Lane wrote:

Is anyone else seeing major breakage of the regression tests with
today's (Monday's) CVS checkins? Or did I break something myself?

I'm seeing wrong answers in tests numerology and select_having;
plus coredumps in opr_sanity, subselect and rules. Also the same
unexpected messages in union and misc as were there a few days ago.

I've been making what I thought were perfectly safe changes, so
I was surprised when things blew up in my face just before I was
ready to check in. Noting the scope of what other people committed
today, I'd like to believe it's someone else's fault...

Try gmake clean + initdb.
At least RULES were affected by my changes...
I forgot to say, sorry.

Vadim

I wrote:

Is anyone else seeing major breakage of the regression tests with
today's (Monday's) CVS checkins? Or did I break something myself?

Nope, Vadim broke something. It looks like anything with a subplan
will coredump in Monday's sources. executor/nodeSubPlan.c has

bool
ExecInitSubPlan(SubPlan *node, EState *estate, Plan *parent)
{
...
ExecCheckPerms(CMD_SELECT, 0, node->rtable, (Query *) NULL);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(and has had that for a long time, evidently). One of the additions
Vadim checked in yesterday extends ExecCheckPerms() to try to use
its parseTree argument --- unconditionally. Guaranteed null-pointer
dereference.

Perhaps ExecInitSubPlan is in error to pass a null parseTree; if not,
then ExecCheckPerms needs to be modified to cope. I don't understand
either routine enough to fix it correctly.

This bug is the cause of the opr_sanity coredump I'm seeing.
I don't have time to investigate the other test failures right now,
but very possibly they are the same thing.

BTW, anyone who is *not* seeing regression test coredumps with the
current CVS sources must have their compile/link options set so that
dereferencing a null pointer isn't fatal. I think that's a very bad
choice for software development --- you want to hear about it, loud
and clear, if your code tries to use a null pointer.

regards, tom lane

I wrote:

Is anyone else seeing major breakage of the regression tests with
today's (Monday's) CVS checkins? Or did I break something myself?

Nope, Vadim broke something. It looks like anything with a subplan
will coredump in Monday's sources. executor/nodeSubPlan.c has

bool
ExecInitSubPlan(SubPlan *node, EState *estate, Plan *parent)
{
...
ExecCheckPerms(CMD_SELECT, 0, node->rtable, (Query *) NULL);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(and has had that for a long time, evidently). One of the additions
Vadim checked in yesterday extends ExecCheckPerms() to try to use
its parseTree argument --- unconditionally. Guaranteed null-pointer
dereference.

Perhaps ExecInitSubPlan is in error to pass a null parseTree; if not,
then ExecCheckPerms needs to be modified to cope. I don't understand
either routine enough to fix it correctly.

I caused the 'having' problems.  I am working on a fix.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tom Lane wrote:

Nope, Vadim broke something. It looks like anything with a subplan
will coredump in Monday's sources. executor/nodeSubPlan.c has

bool
ExecInitSubPlan(SubPlan *node, EState *estate, Plan *parent)
{
...
ExecCheckPerms(CMD_SELECT, 0, node->rtable, (Query *) NULL);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(and has had that for a long time, evidently). One of the additions
Vadim checked in yesterday extends ExecCheckPerms() to try to use
its parseTree argument --- unconditionally. Guaranteed null-pointer
dereference.

Perhaps ExecInitSubPlan is in error to pass a null parseTree; if not,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No.

then ExecCheckPerms needs to be modified to cope. I don't understand

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.

either routine enough to fix it correctly.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, I can't fix this in CVS - I'm changing
execMain.c now to support READ COMMITTED mode. Could someone
add check in ExecCheckPerms ?
Sorry.

Vadim