From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux) <etienne.adam@nokia.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Cc: Duquesne, Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux) <pierre.duquesne@nokia.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:46:09 -0400
Message-ID: <26053.1502804769@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoaWPtfdcZjg+dqLephgKaG7kF8DEdvB870A2t4cUh5x+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL7LBcYM-32B=n_-h_wPHWiML26UvqP3b_WxD7MgXgOwmxvTFw@mail.gmail.com>
<11673.1502467154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20170815025243.GA3986579@rfd.leadboat.com>
<CAA4eK1KeQWZOoDmDmGMwuqzPW9JhRS+ditQVFdAfGjNmMZzqMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoaWPtfdcZjg+dqLephgKaG7kF8DEdvB870A2t4cUh5x+Q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Attached patch fixes the issue for me. I have locally verified that
>> the gather merge gets executed in rescan path. I haven't added a test
>> case for the same as having gather or gather merge on the inner side
>> of join can be time-consuming. However, if you or others feel that it
>> is important to have a test to cover this code path, then I can try to
>> produce one.
> Committed.
> I believe that between this commit and the test-coverage commit from
> Andres, this open item is reasonably well addressed. If someone
> thinks more needs to be done, please specify. Thanks.
How big a deal do we think test coverage is? It looks like
ExecReScanGatherMerge is identical logic to ExecReScanGather,
which *is* covered according to coverage.postgresql.org, but
it wouldn't be too surprising if they diverge in future.
I should think it wouldn't be that expensive to create a test
case, if you already have test cases that invoke GatherMerge.
Adding a right join against a VALUES clause with a small number of
entries, and a non-mergeable/hashable join clause, ought to do it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, noah@leadboat.com, etienne.adam@nokia.com, pierre.duquesne@nokia.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
In-Reply-To: <26053.1502804769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox