From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Martin Kos <martin.kos@molecularhealth.com>,
        "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwZu-JTRz2R6+Xshm3-VzYEctzMo7hjj4Zn+dVcXypJHMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <AM4PR0401MB2241616DE8A709B13019B0E59F3B9@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAKFQuwbUMiHqeLZkCqqCL9gr0soREjprmTrQXJT1iQATfoNWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZu-JTRz2R6+Xshm3-VzYEctzMo7hjj4Zn+dVcXypJHMA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 22 Feb 2022 07:21:05 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <701247.1645544708.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:45:08 -0500
Message-ID: <701248.1645544708@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/701248.1645544708%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> This seems like a decent report (haven’t played with it), still, version
> 11.1!

Indeed.  I can't see any problem in 11.current --- for me, the first
four queries all give 44272445, the next 72002328, and the last two
60000000.  So either we fixed it since 11.1, or the problem requires
some nondefault setting that wasn't mentioned.  I'm not particularly
interested in bisecting to see where it was fixed.

			regards, tom lane