Re: Soon-to-be-broken regression test case

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Soon-to-be-broken regression test case
Date: 2018-10-11 16:45:24
Message-ID: 5749.1539276324@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2018-Oct-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have been fooling around with a patch to allow pull-up of sub-selects
>> that lack any FROM, along the lines discussed in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15944.1521127664@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> I find that it is smart enough to reduce that EXISTS to a plain
>> expression, yielding
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Subquery Scan on tenk1_vw_sec
>> -> Index Only Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1
>> Index Cond: (unique1 = 0)
>> (3 rows)

> Hmm, I have the feeling that this would nullify some tests in
> partition_prune also, which IIRC pretend to invoke runtime pruning with
> things like "WHERE partcol = (select 1)".

Hm, I'm not seeing any regression test result changes there. However,
if you're just executing queries and not EXPLAIN'ing them, it's possible
something unwanted is happening under the hood.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-10-11 16:52:51 Re: Soon-to-be-broken regression test case
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-10-11 16:39:52 Re: Soon-to-be-broken regression test case