Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Onder Kalaci <onderk(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations
Date: 2020-10-18 23:18:14
Message-ID: CAApHDvqgX-13qMvr1Fqr_x9oEEtyMiwJRBZc-s7irjZz16Zb5A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 12:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > For the backbranches, I think I go with something more minimal in the
> > form of adding:
>
> TBH, I see no need to do anything in the back branches. This is not
> an issue for production usage.

I understand the Assert failure is pretty harmless, so non-assert
builds shouldn't suffer too greatly. I just assumed that any large
stakeholders invested in upgrading to a newer version of PostgreSQL
may like to run various tests with their application against an assert
enabled version of PostgreSQL perhaps to gain some confidence in the
upgrade. A failing assert is unlikely to inspire additional
confidence.

I'm not set on backpatching, but that's just my thoughts.

FWIW, the patch I'd thought of is attached.

David

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Fix-Assert-failure-in-join-costing-code.patch text/plain 3.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-10-18 23:25:13 Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-10-18 23:10:06 Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations