From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        "Adam,
    Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne.adam@nokia.com>,
        PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>,
        "Duquesne,
    Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <pierre.duquesne@nokia.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:20:41 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <26052.1502804769.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:46:09 -0400
Message-ID: <26053.1502804769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>> 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


--=20
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs