pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: luis.roberto@siscobra.com.br, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: alan.formagi <alan.formagi@siscobra.com.br>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: segfault with incremental sort
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 13:48:12 -0500
Message-ID: <961142.1604429292@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAaqYe--qpnBOUiqnHSAc71K2HpXetnGedRAX0Z04zx=Y0ExHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <622580997.37108180.1604080457319.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br>
	<102089.1604082122@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<541187747.37582276.1604086719237.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br>
	<107029.1604087483@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1673261949.37800156.1604090102715.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br>
	<1807748588.37862034.1604091799640.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br>
	<136656.1604092024@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1779929796.39206557.1604407053112.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br>
	<924226.1604422326@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAAaqYe--qpnBOUiqnHSAc71K2HpXetnGedRAX0Z04zx=Y0ExHA@mail.gmail.com>

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:52 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So, not only do we need to be thinking about volatility while checking
>> whether IncrementalSort is possible, but also parallel-safety.

> This is part of why I lean towards guessing it applies to regular sort
> also (though haven't confirmed that): the new volatility (and if
> volatile, then "expression is in target" checks just mirror existing
> code pre-incremental sort.

It's certainly possible that the bug exists for non-incremental sort
but previously we'd not try to generate a plan that tripped over it.
Anyway I do not recall seeing code that would specifically check for
this.  I think that, to the extent we've avoided it, it's because the
sort key would normally be part of the reltarget list for some relation
that would thereby get marked non-parallel-safe.  Maybe the DISTINCT
sort key never ends up in any reltarget list?

> I also noticed that the incremental sort plan posted earlier has
> multiple Gather Merge nodes; that's not what I would have expected,
> but maybe I'm missing something.

Hm.  There is only one Gather Merge in the repro case.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (23+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <961142.1604429292@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../961142.1604429292@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/961142.1604429292@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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, jtc331@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, alan.formagi@siscobra.com.br, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: segfault with incremental sort
  In-Reply-To: <961142.1604429292@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