Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan Huehner <stefan(at)huehner(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)
Date: 2016-06-02 01:29:54
Message-ID: 20160602012954.GA619629@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:36:01AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:06:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, David Rowley
> > <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On 5 May 2016 at 16:04, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> I've started making some improvements to this, but need to talk to
> > >> Tomas. It's currently in the middle of his night, but will try to
> > >> catch him in his morning to discuss this with him.
> > >
> > > Ok, so I spoke to Tomas about this briefly, and he's asked me to send
> > > in this patch. He didn't get time to look over it due to some other
> > > commitments he has today.
> > >
> > > I do personally feel that if the attached is not good enough, or not
> > > very close to good enough then probably the best course of action is
> > > to revert the whole thing.
> >
> > Tom, what do you think about this patch? Is it good enough, or should
> > we revert the whole thing?
>
> [This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Simon,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
> efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com

This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2016-06-02 01:35:28 Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-06-02 00:43:38 Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.