| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(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 03:03:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_3xr5j8RzpB62g=5Emfvje9MQF8gWseszAgSucgj9EnQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 8:36 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 at 19:36, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > For the same reason as those commits, I'd also leave this master-only.
> > It is a v17 regression, but planner fixes risk destabilizing plans in
> > stable branches, and this doesn't seem severe enough to be an
> > exception.
> IMO, disabling a node type is quite a clear request that you only want
> that node type used if there's no alternative. I don't think the
> normal reasons for not wanting to destabilise plans here apply to
> this.
Makes sense. I don't think anyone would get upset that we stopped
picking a plan containing a node they had disabled.
Maybe 47c110f77 and 6e466e1e8 should have been back-patched too?
Anyway, let's back-patch this one at least.
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-08-28 03:10:56 | Re: scary patch contest |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-08-28 02:52:35 | Re: pg_plan_advice: fix empty FOREIGN_JOIN sublist validation |