From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join |
Date: | 2023-06-12 14:09:20 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_YhMjbGgLJyyc_SGYTWx3nBuMnhYPxhxZvuCTbuRxAd=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 11:24 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Considering that this is a parallel plan, I don't think there's any
> >> mystery about why an ORDER-BY-less query might have unstable output
> >> order; the only mystery is why more of the buildfarm hasn't failed.
> >> Can we just add "ORDER BY t1.id" to this query? It looks like you
> >> get the same PHJ plan, although now underneath Sort/Gather Merge.
> >
> > Yes, this was an oversight on my part. Attached is the patch that does
> > just what you suggested.
>
> Confirmed that adding an ORDER BY adds a Sort node between a Gather
> Merge and a Parallel Hash Full Join, not removing coverage.
>
> This has fallen through the cracks and conchuela has failed again
> today, so I went ahead and applied the fix on HEAD. Thanks!
Thanks!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-06-12 14:28:05 | Re: Major pgbench synthetic SELECT workload regression, Ubuntu 23.04+PG15 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-12 14:02:04 | Re: ERROR: wrong varnullingrels (b 3) (expected (b)) for Var 2/1 |