Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lnkQg-0004va-5t for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:06:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lnkQf-0004Wt-4h for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:06:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lnkQe-0004Wk-UW for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:06:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lnkQd-0003SS-Lm for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:06:12 +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 14VG66Yr2711245; Mon, 31 May 2021 12:06:06 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> cc: "Poot, Bas (B.J.)" , "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: XX000: unknown type of jsonb container. In-reply-to: <20210531145131.b34sjhhgj7xkq36w@localhost> References: <534fca83789c4a378c7de379e9067d4f@politie.nl> <20210407181105.lmi7hgifwzs3eeee@localhost> <20210413161500.kufk4iyrmcmhhbrc@localhost> <20210423151505.lxx5ti7ivcza3xqw@localhost> <2433209.1622416353@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2491424.1622422768@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20210531145131.b34sjhhgj7xkq36w@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> message dated "Mon, 31 May 2021 16:51:31 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2711243.1622477166.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 12:06:06 -0400 Message-ID: <2711244.1622477166@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 08:59:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> This test case only fails back to v13, as does the original example. >> I suspect we should back-patch the code change further though, >> since create_projection_plan will be just as confused by such cases >> in earlier branches. > That would be my assumption as well. Done now. I spent a little bit of time looking for a test case that'd fail in the prior branches, without success. I think it's highly probable that there is one, but I didn't want to spend any more time here. regards, tom lane