David Rowley wrote:
> On 18 April 2018 at 07:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > While looking at this patch I became curious as to why do we even have
> > first_partial_plan in the first place; it seems to require some strange
> > contortions in the code. Wouldn't it be simpler to have two lists, one
On 18 April 2018 at 07:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> While looking at this patch I became curious as to why do we even have
> first_partial_plan in the first place; it seems to require some strange
> contortions in the code. Wouldn't it be simpler to have two lists, one
> for non-partial and anothe
David Rowley wrote in
https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8o2Yd=rOP=et3a0fwgf+gsaokfsu6enhngztpv7nn...@mail.gmail.com
> I've made another pass over the nodeAppend.c code and I'm unable to
> see what might cause this, although I did discover a bug where
> first_partial_plan is not set taking into account t
