Thanks for the quick fix! Best regards, Max Yang
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 5:18 PM 韩伟 <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your feedback! The issue has been fixed, please refer the > latest PR: https://github.com/cloudberry-contrib/postgis/pull/9 > Thank you for reporting this issue. > > As the same time, I think it's necessary to build a CI to ensure that new > commits do not break existing code in future. > > Best, > Wei Han > > > From: "Ed Espino"<[email protected]> > > Date: Thu, Oct 16, 2025, 15:09 > > Subject: PostGIS 3.3.2 Testing - Distributed Query Memory Corruption > Issue > > To: <[email protected]> > > Hi Cloudberry Team, > > > > > I wanted to share findings from testing PostGIS 3.3.2 with Cloudberry and > > > see if we can learn from this experience together. > > > > > Issue Summary: > > > > > While attempting to validate the PostGIS 3.3.2 integration by running its > > > embedded regression test suite, I encountered critical memory corruption > in > > > distributed > > > queries with spatial predicates. I've filed a detailed bug report with > > > reproduction steps: > > > > > GitHub Issue: [Bug] PostGIS Memory Corruption in Distributed > Querieshttps:// > > > github.com/apache/cloudberry/issues/1395 > > > > > The issue manifests as consistent crashes (mcxt.c:933 assertion failures) > > > when executing cross-segment joins with geometry operations like > > > ST_Contains and > > > ST_Intersection. Single-segment queries work fine. > > > > > Testing Approach: > > > > > My goal was straightforward: run PostGIS's own regression test suite > > > against Cloudberry to validate the integration. The embedded tests are > > > designed to exercise > > > PostGIS functionality comprehensively, and they revealed this distributed > > > architecture incompatibility immediately. > > > > > Questions for the Community: > > > > > I'm curious about the testing methodology used during the PostGIS 3.3.2 > > > upgrade work: > > > > > 1. What testing was performed to validate the PostGIS 3.3.2 integration? > > > 2. Were the PostGIS embedded regression tests run against Cloudberry's > > > distributed architecture? > > > 3. If testing was done, were distributed queries with geometry joins > > > tested, or primarily single-segment scenarios? > > > > > I'm asking not to point fingers, but to understand where we can improve > our > > > extension testing practices. This seems like a gap we should address > > > systematically. > > > > > Opportunity for Improvement: > > > > > Running upstream extension test suites against Cloudberry's distributed > > > architecture seems like valuable validation that could catch integration > > > issues early. Would > > > the community be interested in: > > > > > - Establishing testing guidelines for extension upgrades? > > > - Sharing test frameworks/approaches for distributed query validation? > > > - Creating a checklist for extension integration testing? > > > > > The full technical analysis, core dumps, and test reproduction suite are > > > available in the GitHub issue. Happy to discuss findings or testing > > > approaches. > > > > > Best regards, > > > -=e > > > -- > > > Ed Espino > > > Apache Cloudberry (Incubating) & MADlib > >
