Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mats Kindahl
Subject Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases
Date
Msg-id CA+14426oHGM1A7kMK1Sv=xYizjmdnJdWYkkud9NEgGsqbg1CCg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases  (Marco Slot <marco.slot@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:51 PM Marco Slot <marco.slot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:57 AM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
> I'm working with the TimescaleDB dev team to fix these issues on the
> TimescaleDB side.

I looked a bit at this out of interest. I see an assert failure in the
lines below when running tests with TimescaleDB compiled against 17.0
with 17.1 installed. Without the assertion it would anyway segfault
below.

    /*
     * Usually, mt_lastResultIndex matches the target rel.  If it happens not
     * to, we can get the index the hard way with an integer division.
     */
    whichrel = mtstate->mt_lastResultIndex;
    if (resultRelInfo != mtstate->resultRelInfo + whichrel)
    {
        whichrel = resultRelInfo - mtstate->resultRelInfo;
        Assert(whichrel >= 0 && whichrel < mtstate->mt_nrels);
    }

    updateColnos = (List *) list_nth(node->updateColnosLists, whichrel);

The problem here is that because TimescaleDB compiled against 17.0
assumes a struct size of 376 (on my laptop) while PostgreSQL allocated
the array with a struct size of 384, so the pointer math no longer
holds and the whichrel value becomes nonsense. (1736263376 for
whatever reason)

That was one of the failures that we had, but we also have a copy of the ExecModifyTable() function and this line would in that case be a problem:

607
608             /* Preload local variables */
609             resultRelInfo = node->resultRelInfo + node->mt_lastResultIndex;
610             subplanstate = outerPlanState(node);
611

This stores several resultRelInfo as an array (it seems), which trivially will break if you pass it back and forth between extension and server code (where sizeof(ResultRelInfo) is different). For this case, a List might be better since it will just contain pointers and the extension will in that case just not read the added fields.
--
Best wishes,
Mats Kindahl, Timescale

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Next
From: Mat Arye
Date:
Subject: Catching query cancelations in PLPython3u