Skip to content

release-26.1: rowenc: fix panic in composite datum type checking#161747

Merged
yuzefovich merged 1 commit intorelease-26.1from
blathers/backport-release-26.1-161739
Feb 12, 2026
Merged

release-26.1: rowenc: fix panic in composite datum type checking#161747
yuzefovich merged 1 commit intorelease-26.1from
blathers/backport-release-26.1-161739

Conversation

@blathers-crl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot commented Jan 24, 2026

Backport 1/1 commits from #161739 on behalf of @ZhouXing19.


Fixes #161402

Previously, composite type checking assumed all values implemented tree.CompositeDatum, causing panics when this wasn't true. Use safe type assertion to check if datum is composite before calling IsComposite().

Release note: None


Release justification: fix for high severity stability issue that causes node crashes. A test failure revealed that incorrect type assumptions in rowenc can trigger panics when processing composite types, leading to node instability and potential service disruption.

Fixes #161402

Previously, composite type checking assumed all values implemented
tree.CompositeDatum, causing panics when this wasn't true. Use safe
type assertion to check if datum is composite before calling IsComposite().

Release note: None
@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-26.1-161739 branch from bf5157c to 6e9b787 Compare January 24, 2026 23:27
@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Jan 24, 2026
@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot requested a review from a team as a code owner January 24, 2026 23:27
@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot requested review from mw5h and removed request for a team January 24, 2026 23:27
@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot requested a review from yuzefovich January 24, 2026 23:27
@blathers-crl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

blathers-crl Bot commented Jan 24, 2026

Thanks for opening a backport.

Before merging, please confirm that the change does not break backwards compatibility and otherwise complies with the backport policy. Include a brief release justification in the PR description explaining why the backport is appropriate. All backports must be reviewed by the TL for the owning area. While the stricter LTS policy does not yet apply, please exercise judgment and consider gating non-critical changes behind a disabled-by-default feature flag when appropriate.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl Bot added backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches T-sql-queries SQL Queries Team labels Jan 24, 2026
@blathers-crl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

blathers-crl Bot commented Jan 24, 2026

It looks like your PR touches production code but doesn't add or edit any test code. Did you consider adding tests to your PR?

🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.

@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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: Nice fix!

@michae2 reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mw5h and @yuzefovich).

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reminder: it has been 2 weeks please merge or close your backport!

@yuzefovich yuzefovich merged commit b53f304 into release-26.1 Feb 12, 2026
18 checks passed
@yuzefovich yuzefovich deleted the blathers/backport-release-26.1-161739 branch February 12, 2026 17:58
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. no-backport-pr-activity O-robot Originated from a bot. T-sql-queries SQL Queries Team v26.1.1

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants