| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
| Date: | 2020-08-06 03:22:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFbxr-FJJvDEzQ4WW0FKd3GqeJpcsGEtEHcfm1x+uqz4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The attached patch should fix that.
>
> I don't like this patch at all though; I do not think it is being nearly
> careful enough to ensure that it's matched the surviving relation OIDs
> correctly. In particular it blithely assumes that a zero in relid_map
> *must* match the immediately next entry in partdesc->oids, which is easy
> to break if the new partition is adjacent to the one the planner managed
> to prune.
Indeed, you're right.
> So I think we should do it more like the attached.
Thanks for pushing that.
--
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2020-08-06 03:49:36 | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-08-06 02:58:44 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |