| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting ERROR "subplan "SubPlan 1" was not initialized" in EXISTS subplan when using for list partition. |
| Date: | 2021-09-15 16:18:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAqtmyzz5-nt5Ugrb=t7z6FujLuAFrmHmTNoHFW_oHY3jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em qua., 15 de set. de 2021 às 12:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:
> Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I would like to ask if this alternative fix (attached) would also solve
> the
> > problem or not.
>
> If I'm reading the patch correctly, that fixes it by failing to drop
> unused subplans at all --- the second loop you have has no external
> effect.
>
> We could, in fact, not bother with removing the no-longer-referenced
> subplans, and it probably wouldn't be all that awful. But the intent
> of the original patch was to save the executor startup time for such
> subplans, so I wanted to preserve that goal if I could. The committed
> patch seems small enough and cheap enough to be worthwhile.
>
Understood, thanks for replying.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-09-15 16:25:33 | Re: Partial index "microvacuum" |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-09-15 16:13:35 | Re: Hook for extensible parsing. |