From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner |
Date: | 2019-03-11 14:46:12 |
Message-ID: | 22068.1552315572@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> (2019/03/11 14:14), Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems to me it's the other way around: the final target would include
>> all functions invoked in the grouping target plus maybe some more.
>> So a non-parallel-safe grouping target implies a non-parallel-safe
>> final target, but not vice versa.
> I mean the final *scan/join* target, not the final target.
Oh, of course. Yup, I was too tired last night :-(. So this is
just a plan-quality problem not a wrong-answer problem.
However, I'd still argue for back-patching into v11, on the grounds
that this is a regression from v10. The example you just gave does
produce the desired plan in v10, and I think it's more likely that
people would complain about a regression from v10 than that they'd
be unhappy because we changed it between 11.2 and 11.3.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2019-03-11 15:03:54 | Re: GiST VACUUM |
Previous Message | Georgios Kokolatos | 2019-03-11 14:35:49 | Re: Adding a TAP test checking data consistency on standby with minRecoveryPoint |