Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in postgres_fdw/deparse.c:1116

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in postgres_fdw/deparse.c:1116
Date: 2016-06-08 02:41:30
Message-ID: 20160608024130.GA805335@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:49:23PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 2016/06/07 19:13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> > So, your patch looks to be the correct approach (even after we support
> >> > deparsing subqueries). Can you please include a test in regression?
> >>
> >> I added a slightly modified version of your test to the originally posted
> >> patch.
> >>
> > Looks good to me. If we add a column from the outer relation, the "NULL"ness
> > of inner column would be more clear. May be we should tweak the query to
> > produce few more rows, some with non-NULL columns from both the relations.
> > Also add a note to the comment in the test mentioning that such a join won't
> > be pushed down for a reader to understand the EXPLAIN output. Also, you
> > might want to move that test, closer to other un-pushability tests.
>
> Done in the attached. Please check if my comment explains the reason
> of push-down failure correctly.

[Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Robert,
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-06-08 03:01:07 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-08 02:07:28 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table