On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 3:39 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > > So I'm back home and found a couple more weird errors in the log: > > > > > ERROR: mismatching PartitionPruneInfo found at part_prune_index 0 > > > DETALLE: plan node relids (b 1), pruneinfo relids (b 36) > > > > This one reproduces for me. > > I've looked into this one and the attached patch fixes it for me. > Turns out set_plan_refs()'s idea of when the entries from > PlannerInfo.partPruneInfos are transferred into > PlannerGlobal.partPruneInfo was wrong.
Thanks for the patch. I've pushed it to github for CI testing, and if there are no problems I'll put it in. > Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the > notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1] > has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that > doesn't require hacking up the pruning code. Hmm, that's indeed tempting. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/