From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker in ExecInitSubPlan |
Date: | 2016-11-21 15:35:36 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+0MUZUvMNuO6SLzjEwD2KVWssDL3G=AiBHHQTzxWnm1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Andreas Seltenreich
> <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the query below triggers a parallel worker assertion for me when run on
>> the regression database of master as of 0832f2d. The plan sports a
>> couple of InitPlan nodes below Gather.
>>
>
> I think the reason of this issue is that in some cases where subplan
> is at some node other than top_plan node, we allow them to be executed
> in the worker in force_parallel_mode. It seems to me that the
> problematic code is below check in standard_planner()
>
> if (force_parallel_mode != FORCE_PARALLEL_OFF &&
> best_path->parallel_safe &&
> top_plan->initPlan == NIL)
>
> Here instead of checking whether top_plan has initPlan, it should
> check whether initPlan is present anywhere in plan tree. I think one
> simple way could be to check *glob->subplans* instead of
> top_plan->initPlan,
>
Patch based on above suggestion is attached with this mail.
Thoughts?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
restrict_subplans_parallel_mode_v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 839 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-21 16:00:58 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker in ExecInitSubPlan |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-21 15:33:10 | Re: [sqlsmith] Parallel worker crash on seqscan |