| From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, zengman(at)halodbtech(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix disabled_nodes propagation for single-child Append paths |
| Date: | 2026-08-28 06:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHewXN=WhqCuE0Y=eFKrKiwtrnn93cX7ON1vFFv_6YVfQ-W0nA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2026年8月28日周五 14:30写道：
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 2:02 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I also think the one reported here is slightly worse due to the
> > behaviour depending on the number of pruned partitions.
>
> Agreed, and I think you are right about the other two being consistent
> in a way this one is not. This one only misbehaviors when a single
> child survives, so the same query can honour enable_indexscan=off or
> not depending on how many partitions are pruned.
>
> I've pushed this patch and back-patched it to v18. (I have a typo in
> my previous email saying this is a v17 regression, but it should be
> v18).
Thanks for pushing.
--
Thanks,
Tender Wang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-08-28 06:50:03 | Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2026-08-28 06:29:46 | Re: [PATCH] Fix disabled_nodes propagation for single-child Append paths |