On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:30:57PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you for the labor for polishing this patch. > > I have no obvious objection at a glance on this new patch. > > I agree to commit this if you this is pertinent to commit except > for the issue newly revealed by this patch. Though could you let > me have some more time to examine this by myself and fully > understand the changes what you made?
Yes; waiting several days is no problem. > At Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:29:35 -0500, Noah Misch wrote > > An alternative was > > to introduce a new RTE flag, say "append". An inheritance parent under a > > UNION ALL would have append = false, inh = true; other inheritance parent > > RTEs > > would have append = true, inh = true; an RTE for UNION ALL itself would have > > append = true, inh = false. > > I think that kind of complexity is not necessary for this issue. Agreed. > > Incidentally, I tried adding an assertion that append_rel_list does not show > > one appendrel as a direct child of another. The following query, off-topic > > for the patch at hand, triggered that assertion: > > > > SELECT 0 FROM (SELECT 0 UNION ALL SELECT 0) t0 > > UNION ALL > > SELECT 0 FROM (SELECT 0 UNION ALL SELECT 0) t0; > > This seems not to crash unless this patch is applied, but itself > doesn't seem to be a bug. To my knowledge, the query does not crash the server under any patch provided on this thread. > I think it should be cured along with > this patch even if it is not the issue of this patch. That would require changing rather different code, probably something in the vicinity of pull_up_subqueries(). I'll leave it for another patch. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
