Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sLl8n-00GPWy-BS for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:57:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sLl8l-00A1IN-9J for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:57:55 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sLl8l-00A1IF-0s for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:57:55 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sLl8i-002u2v-SZ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:57:54 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 45OEvpZt1161094; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:57:52 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: 2467882606@qq.com cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18520: Different results when analyze a relation with UDT. In-reply-to: <18520-12e5636a81c059f2@postgresql.org> References: <18520-12e5636a81c059f2@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:10:01 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1161092.1719241071.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:57:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1161093.1719241071@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk PG Bug reporting form writes: > When analyzing a relation with UDT, an error will be encountered if there is > a join before the analyze stmts. Error message is "ERROR: missing support > function 1(16386,16386) in opfamily 16392". What your example shows is a buggy (very incomplete) operator class. This is not a Postgres bug. regards, tom lane