On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 08:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> I renamed things that way, did some more work on the comments,
> and pushed it. Thanks for reviewing!
Thanks for working on this and coming up with the idea to nuke partitioned_rels.
David
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, it's too late at night. I now remember that the real problem
>> I had with that representation was that it cannot work for joinrels.
>> Currently we only apply this logic to partitioned baserels, but
>> don't you think it
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > David Rowley writes:
> >> Parent RT indexes are guaranteed to be lower than their children RT
> >> indexes,
>
> > I was intentionally avoiding that assumption ;-). Maybe it buys enough
> > to be worth the loss of generality, but ...
>
I wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> Parent RT indexes are guaranteed to be lower than their children RT
>> indexes,
> I was intentionally avoiding that assumption ;-). Maybe it buys enough
> to be worth the loss of generality, but ...
Oh, it's too late at night. I now remember that the real pro
David Rowley writes:
> What I can't understand is why you changed to a List-of-Lists rather
> than a List-of-Relids.
Yeah, I spent no effort on micro-optimizing the data structure. I figured
that since we were not including leaf partitions, there would never be
enough rels involved to worry abou
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> For simplicity of review I divided the patch into two parts.
> 0001 revises make_partition_pruneinfo() and children to identify
> the relevant parent partitions for themselves, which is not too
> hard to do by chasing up the child-to-parent AppendR
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:50 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This fixes the cases reported by Andreas and Jaime, leaving me
> > more confident that there's nothing wrong with David's Assert.
>
> It could be fixed by modifying get_singleton_append_subpath(
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> This fixes the cases reported by Andreas and Jaime, leaving me
> more confident that there's nothing wrong with David's Assert.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with the Assert.
The commit message of a929e17e5 mentions:
> Here we tighten that u
I wrote:
> As I said, I'm now thinking it's not the Assert that's faulty.
> If I'm right about that, it's likely that the mistaken labeling
> of these paths has other consequences beyond triggering this
> assertion. (If it has none, I think we'd be better off to remove
> these Path fields altogeth
Zhihong Yu writes:
> I wonder if the (failed) assertion should be converted to an if statement:
As I said, I'm now thinking it's not the Assert that's faulty.
If I'm right about that, it's likely that the mistaken labeling
of these paths has other consequences beyond triggering this
assertion. (
Hi,
I wonder if the (failed) assertion should be converted to an if statement:
diff --git a/src/backend/partitioning/partprune.c
b/src/backend/partitioning/partprune.c
index fac921eea5..d646f08a07 100644
--- a/src/backend/partitioning/partprune.c
+++ b/src/backend/partitioning/partprune.c
@@ -585,
I wrote:
>> What it looks like to me is that the code for setting up run-time
>> partition pruning has failed to consider the possibility of nested
>> partitioning: it's expecting that every partitioned table will have
>> at least one direct child that is a leaf. I'm not sure though
>> whether jus
I wrote:
> What it looks like to me is that the code for setting up run-time
> partition pruning has failed to consider the possibility of nested
> partitioning: it's expecting that every partitioned table will have
> at least one direct child that is a leaf. I'm not sure though
> whether just the
Andreas Seltenreich writes:
> testing master at 3df51ca8 with sqlsmith triggers the following
> assertion:
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!bms_is_empty(present_parts)", File:
> "partprune.c", Line: 588, PID: 8540)
> I looked at a dozen backtraces and they all sport a window aggregate but
> that ma
Hi,
testing master at 3df51ca8 with sqlsmith triggers the following
assertion:
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!bms_is_empty(present_parts)", File: "partprune.c",
Line: 588, PID: 8540)
I looked at a dozen backtraces and they all sport a window aggregate but
that may still be random chance since sqls
15 matches
Mail list logo
