| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wrong query result with jit_above_cost= 0 |
| Date: | 2018-06-26 20:56:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20180626205643.io2tbxtomkj3xzr2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-26 21:55:07 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Dmitry" == Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> Dmitry> Yep, my bad, forgot to turn it on. Now I see what's the
> Dmitry> problem, one of the null fields is screwed up, will try to
> Dmitry> figure out why is that.
>
> The handling of nulls in grouping set results is a bit icky, see
> prepare_projection_slot in nodeAgg.c. The comment there lists a number
> of assumptions which may or may not hold true under JIT which might give
> a starting point to look for problems. (Unfortunately I'm not currently
> in a position to test on a JIT build)
I probably just screwed up a bit of code generation. I can't see any of
the more fundamental assumptions being changed by the way JITing is
done.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan Lemig | 2018-06-26 21:51:32 | Name of main process differs between servers (postmaster vs postgres) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-06-26 20:55:07 | Re: wrong query result with jit_above_cost= 0 |