Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

release-25.1: opt/optbuilder: only re-type-check values rows for wildcard types #140306

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 1, 2025

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Feb 1, 2025

Backport 1/1 commits from #140277 on behalf of @DrewKimball.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


After #129706 we began type-checking expressions in Values operators again after building them. This is needed to update the resolved type if there was a RECORD-returning UDF, which cannot resolve its type until after it is built. However, this fix broke some other cases because the initial type-check can discard casts, causing the second time to result in a slightly different type (e.g. TIMESTAMP vs TIMESTAMPTZ). This commit fixes the oversight by only type-checking the second time if the previously resolved type was a wildcard type like AnyTuple, indicating that a concrete type could not be found on the first pass.

Fixes #137968

Release note (sql change): Fixed a bug existing only in pre-release versions of v25.1 which could cause unexpected errors during planning for VALUES expressions containing function calls with multiple overloads.


Release justification: narrows the scope of a previous fix to prevent regressions

After #129706 we began type-checking expressions in `Values` operators
again after building them. This is needed to update the resolved type
if there was a RECORD-returning UDF, which cannot resolve its type until
after it is built. However, this fix broke some other cases because the
initial type-check can discard casts, causing the second time to result
in a slightly different type (e.g. `TIMESTAMP` vs `TIMESTAMPTZ`).
This commit fixes the oversight by only type-checking the second time
if the previously resolved type was a wildcard type like `AnyTuple`,
indicating that a concrete type could not be found on the first pass.

Fixes #137968

Release note (sql change): Fixed a bug existing only in pre-release versions
of v25.1 which could cause unexpected errors during planning for `VALUES`
expressions containing function calls with multiple overloads.
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from a team as a code owner February 1, 2025 00:57
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-25.1-140277 branch from b1ca5ce to d20043b Compare February 1, 2025 00:57
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Feb 1, 2025
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from mgartner and removed request for a team February 1, 2025 00:57
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from michae2 February 1, 2025 00:57
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Feb 1, 2025

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Backports should only be created for serious
    issues
    or test-only changes.
  • Backports should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Backports should change as little code as possible.
  • Backports should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Backports should not add new functionality (except as defined
    here).
  • Backports must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
  • All backports must be reviewed by the owning areas TL. For more information as to how that review should be conducted, please consult the backport
    policy
    .
If your backport adds new functionality, please ensure that the following additional criteria are satisfied:
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters. State changes must be further protected such that nodes running old binaries will not be negatively impacted by the new state (with a mixed version test added).
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.
  • Your backport must be accompanied by a post to the appropriate Slack
    channel (#db-backports-point-releases or #db-backports-XX-X-release) for awareness and discussion.

Also, please add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this
backport.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches label Feb 1, 2025
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Collaborator

@michae2 michae2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mgartner)

@DrewKimball DrewKimball merged commit 3b31011 into release-25.1 Feb 1, 2025
19 of 20 checks passed
@DrewKimball DrewKimball deleted the blathers/backport-release-25.1-140277 branch February 1, 2025 09:15
Copy link
Collaborator

@mgartner mgartner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice fix!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants