From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used |
Date: | 2025-10-12 08:24:27 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvoYJ44s4pW8p2Fgikj22FQaYLpf2YDXRpkCLquH2kW35g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 at 03:53, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 2:35 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Are
> > you certain that no rows are matching the state = 'WAIT_EVENT' qual?
>
> There are, around 80k rows, but it fluctuates quite a bit.
Thanks for confirming that. That is subtly different from what you
indicated in the last report, and it does seem like my suspicions in
[1] were correct after all.
Unfortunately, you've hit a limitation in our cost model and we can't
really do much about that as a bug fix as it comes down to design.
The no-op function you've added (which I assume is a stable plpgsql
function to return the input order_state enum) is an adequate
workaround to stop the wait_event index being used for the problem
query.
David
[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvp=+EN2o=8fD47nyKKOSiQbLdYGLfUb=2obLWwQxUjyfg@mail.gmail.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marco Boeringa | 2025-10-12 08:24:51 | Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-10-12 08:10:13 | Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade |