| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19102: Assertion failure in generate_orderedappend_paths with aggregate pushdown |
| Date: | 2025-11-05 01:36:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs49GqiLdhH77BPHfqE+7KGN2H67pvKamYWeVKGZv_iPLZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:41 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder if get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() should start
> the same as get_cheapest_fractional_path() with calculation of the
> tuple fraction. We could change its first argument to RelOptInfo,
> since the both callers get pathlist from RelOptInfo. See attached
> draft patch implementing this.
No, I don't think your patch is correct. With your changes, the
meaning of the fraction parameter in
get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() becomes quite ambiguous.
In the build_minmax_path() case, this parameter represents the
fraction of tuples we want to retrieve, and thus converting the
fraction again within get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() is
incorrect. However, in the generate_orderedappend_paths() case, the
parameter is interpreted the same way as in grouping_planner(). I
don't think it's a good design choice for the same function parameter
to be interpreted differently depending on where it is called.
In addition, your patch doesn't update this function's comment to
provide a correct explanation of the fraction parameter.
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-11-05 01:46:24 | Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-11-04 23:41:13 | Re: BUG #19102: Assertion failure in generate_orderedappend_paths with aggregate pushdown |