Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2019-03-12 07:44:20
Message-ID: 5C876354.1000905@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(2019/03/11 23:46), Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. I committed the patch to v11 and HEAD. Thanks for reviewing!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2019-03-12 07:53:51 pg_rewind : feature to rewind promoted standby is broken!
Previous Message John Naylor 2019-03-12 07:22:24 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?