On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:40 AM amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All the places from where this handle_missing_partition() get called > have the following code to decide the value for missing_side_outer/_inner > which > I yet to understand. Do you think this has some flaw? > > /* > * For a FULL join, inner relation acts as both OUTER and INNER > * relation. For LEFT and ANTI join the inner relation acts as > * INNER relation. For INNER and SEMI join OUTER and INNER > * differentiation is immaterial. > */ > missing_side_inner = (jointype == JOIN_FULL || > jointype == JOIN_LEFT || > jointype == JOIN_ANTI); > missing_side_outer = (jointype == JOIN_FULL); >
I was wrong, sorry. The comment says it all. > > > >> argument value which fails to set merged_index. >>> >>> In the attached patch, I tried to fix this case by setting merged_index >>> explicitly which fixes the reported crash. >>> >> >> I expect handle_missing_partition() to set the merged_index always. In >> your patches, I don't see that function in your patches is setting it >> explicitly. If we are setting merged_index explicitly somewhere else, other >> places may miss that explicit assignment. So it's better to move it inside >> this function. >> >> > > Ok, that can be fixed. > > Similarly, I think merge_null_partitions should set null_index instead of > asserting when null partitions missing from both the side, make sense? > I think not. null_index, once set shouldn't change and hence does not change with each pair of partitions being matched. So, it makes sense to make sure that null_index remains invalid if none of the tables have null partition. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
