`array_position...()` causes SIGSEGV
Hello hackers,
I met SIGSEGV when using `array_position()` with record type
arguments, so I've written a patch which corrects this problem. It
seems that `array_position...()` sets wrong memory context for the
cached function (in this case `record_eq()`) which is used to find a
matching element.
The problem is reproducable with the following query.
SELECT array_position(ids, (1, 1))
FROM (VALUES (ARRAY[(0, 0)]), (ARRAY[(1, 1)])) AS _(ids);
Attachments:
0001-Fix-memory-context-bugs-in-array_position.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=0001-Fix-memory-context-bugs-in-array_position.patchDownload+4-3
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Junseok Yang <jsyang@bitnine.net> wrote:
I met SIGSEGV when using `array_position()` with record type
arguments, so I've written a patch which corrects this problem. It
seems that `array_position...()` sets wrong memory context for the
cached function (in this case `record_eq()`) which is used to find a
matching element.The problem is reproducable with the following query.
SELECT array_position(ids, (1, 1))
FROM (VALUES (ARRAY[(0, 0)]), (ARRAY[(1, 1)])) AS _(ids);
Good catch. That's present since 13dbc7a8 and the introduction of
array_offset(), or array_position() on HEAD, so the patch should be
applied down to 9.5.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Junseok Yang <jsyang@bitnine.net> wrote:
I met SIGSEGV when using `array_position()` with record type
arguments, so I've written a patch which corrects this problem. It
seems that `array_position...()` sets wrong memory context for the
cached function (in this case `record_eq()`) which is used to find a
matching element.The problem is reproducable with the following query.
SELECT array_position(ids, (1, 1))
FROM (VALUES (ARRAY[(0, 0)]), (ARRAY[(1, 1)])) AS _(ids);Good catch. That's present since 13dbc7a8 and the introduction of
array_offset(), or array_position() on HEAD, so the patch should be
applied down to 9.5.
Thanks for CC'ing me. Looking now.
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Junseok Yang wrote:
Hello hackers,
I met SIGSEGV when using `array_position()` with record type
arguments, so I've written a patch which corrects this problem. It
seems that `array_position...()` sets wrong memory context for the
cached function (in this case `record_eq()`) which is used to find a
matching element.
Looks correct to me, so pushed to all affected branches.
The problem is reproducable with the following query.
SELECT array_position(ids, (1, 1))
FROM (VALUES (ARRAY[(0, 0)]), (ARRAY[(1, 1)])) AS _(ids);
I used this as a new regression test.
Thanks for the report and patch!
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers