From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 15:36:59 -0500
Message-ID: <24818.1552077419@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C7908B9.5070407@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <5C75303E.8020303@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<CA+TgmobmV=Zw2OEJKUorJe=e+_fCzsvYErR6tXxTjCzK45x9RQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5C7908B9.5070407@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> (2019/02/28 0:52), Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:26 AM Etsuro Fujita
>> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> The parallel safety of the final scan/join target is determined from the
>>> grouping target, not that target, which [ is wrong ]
>> Your patch looks right to me.
> I think it would be better for you to take this one. Could you?
I concur with Robert that this is a brown-paper-bag-grade bug in
960df2a97. Please feel free to push (and don't forget to back-patch).
The only really interesting question is whether it's worth adding
a regression test for. I doubt it; the issue seems much too narrow.
Usually the point of a regression test is to prevent re-introduction
of the same/similar bug, but what class of bugs would you argue
we'd be protecting against?
regards, tom lane
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner
In-Reply-To: <24818.1552077419@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