From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne(dot)adam(at)nokia(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Duquesne, Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <pierre(dot)duquesne(at)nokia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
Date: | 2017-08-15 11:31:44 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KeQWZOoDmDmGMwuqzPW9JhRS+ditQVFdAfGjNmMZzqMQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:59:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne(dot)adam(at)nokia(dot)com> writes:
>> > ERROR: XX000: unrecognized node type: 90
>> > LOCATION: ExecReScan, execAmi.c:284
>>
>> (gdb) p (NodeTag) 90
>> $1 = T_GatherMergeState
>>
>> So, apparently somebody wrote ExecReScanGatherMerge, but never bothered
>> to plug it into ExecReScan.
Attached patch fixes the issue for me. I have locally verified that
the gather merge gets executed in rescan path. I haven't added a test
case for the same as having gather or gather merge on the inner side
of join can be time-consuming. However, if you or others feel that it
is important to have a test to cover this code path, then I can try to
produce one.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
execrescan_gathermerge_v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 737 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-15 13:20:41 | Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-08-15 05:16:40 | Re: Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-08-15 12:20:10 | Stats for triggers on partitioned tables not shown in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-08-15 10:04:50 | Re: measuring the impact of increasing WAL segment size |