On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 1:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I'm happy to have you tidy up here in whatever way seems best to you.
>
> Cool, done.
>
Thanks for taking care of this, and sorry for not digging deeper to
find the appropriate fix.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I think this is completely wrong and should be reverted. There
> cannot be a Param there, and if there were it would not represent
> a reference to the Gather's child.
>
> I tried reverting this code change, and check-world still passes,
> with o
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm happy to have you tidy up here in whatever way seems best to you.
Cool, done.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> (and similarly in fix_upper_expr_mutator). So actually, I had broken
> setrefs.c's matching of Params to lower plan levels with the
> multi-assignment business, and Amit was dodging that breakage.
> But this change is still wrong in itself: if any
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried reverting this code change, and check-world still passes,
>> with or without debug_parallel_query = regress. So if there is
>> a case I'm missing, the regression tests don't expose it.
> Did you try the test case
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I think we need to make changes in exec_simple_recheck_plan to make
>> the behavior similar to HEAD. With the attached patch, all tests
>> passed with force_parallel_mode.
> Committed to REL_10_STABLE.
Sorry for resur
