| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, thibaut(dot)madelaine(at)dalibo(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15669: Error with unnest in PG 11 (ERROR: 0A000) |
| Date: | 2019-03-07 10:51:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Z3BXYRABJNGAJvv=83zz1a-H9t7QAeXPTy+ejey2tpFg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I've already got a mostly-working patch. It's causing one plan change
> > in select_parallel that I've not quite figured out the reason for, or
> > I should say that it's not obvious why the existing code appears to
> > work...
>
> And here 'tis. I spent some time improving the existing comments, because
> it's not very clear what some of this is doing or why it has to be done
> that way.
This all looks good to me. I'm wondering about this chunk though:
+ bool rel_is_partitioned = (rel->part_scheme && rel->part_rels);
IIUC it' safe for now (according to f069c91a579), but should we use
IS_PARTITIONED_REL macro instead? If yes, probably
create_ordinary_grouping_paths() should be updated too.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ricardo Teixeira | 2019-03-07 10:55:46 | Fw: Instalation Bug |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-03-07 02:17:11 | Re: BUG #15672: PostgreSQL 11.1/11.2 crashed after dropping a partition table |