From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Parallel worker crash on seqscan |
Date: | 2016-11-21 18:14:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoac_PGrVOj2pHqTo0ugF58BkmZ=-7Z26neuB4QWgz8Dbg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Actually, the Gather path *isn't* parameterized. The problem here is
>> that we're planning an unflattened subquery, and the only thing that
>> is parallel-unsafe is that there is an outer Param in its toplevel tlist,
>> and we're somehow deciding that we can stick that unsafe tlist into (and
>> beneath) the Gather node. So something rotten in that area, but I've not
>> quite found it yet.
>
> Hah: not where I thought it was at all. The problem seems to be down to
> the optimization I put into is_parallel_safe() awhile back to skip testing
> anything if we previously found the entire querytree to be parallel-safe.
> Well, the raw query tree *is* parallel-safe. It's only when we inject
> some Params that we have a parallel hazard. So that optimization is too
> optimistic :-(
That sucks. Any idea how we might salvage it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-21 18:17:17 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-11-21 18:12:21 | Re: patch: function xmltable |