On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 00:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thanks for looking at this. After sleeping on it, I'm inclined
> to use the v1 patch in the back branches and do the cost fixups
> only in HEAD.
I'm also fine with v1 for the back branches.
David
Richard Guo writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 3:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> The v1 patch attached is enough to fix the immediate issue,
>> but there's another thing not to like, which is that we're also
>> discarding the costs associated with the initplans. That's
>> strictly cosmetic given that
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 3:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> The v1 patch attached is enough to fix the immediate issue,
> but there's another thing not to like, which is that we're also
> discarding the costs associated with the initplans. That's
> strictly cosmetic given that all the planning decisions
Justin Pryzby writes:
> postgres=# SET force_parallel_mode =1; CREATE TABLE x (i int) PARTITION BY
> RANGE (i); CREATE TABLE x1 PARTITION OF x DEFAULT ;
> select * from pg_class,
> lateral (select pg_catalog.bit_and(1)
> from pg_class as sample_1
> where case when EXISTS (
>
Reduced from sqlsmith, this query fails under debug_parallel_query=1.
The elog was added at: 55416b26a98fcf354af88cdd27fc2e045453b68a
But (I'm not sure) the faulty commit may be 8edd0e7946 (Suppress Append
and MergeAppend plan nodes that have a single child).
postgres=# SET force_parallel_mode
