On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 8:08 PM wenhui qiu wrote:
> No objections.It's a pity that the postgresql18 version has been code-frozen
v18 is now in feature freeze, but not code freeze, so bug fixes are
still allowed. I've pushed this patch after adding the "Reviewed-by"
tags.
Thanks
Richard
HI
No objections.It's a pity that the postgresql18 version has been
code-frozen
Thanks
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 4:21 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 4/14/25 08:49, Richard Guo wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 4:50 PM Richard Guo
> wrote:
> >> Hence, I propose the attached patch for the fix.
On 4/14/25 08:49, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 4:50 PM Richard Guo wrote:
Hence, I propose the attached patch for the fix.
BTW, there is a XXX comment there saying that maybe we can make the
remaining join quals part of the inner scan's filter instead of the
join filter. I don't
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 4:50 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> Hence, I propose the attached patch for the fix.
>
> BTW, there is a XXX comment there saying that maybe we can make the
> remaining join quals part of the inner scan's filter instead of the
> join filter. I don't think this is possible in all c
On 4/7/25 09:50, Richard Guo wrote:
Consider the join to t3. It is a unique join, and not all of its
restriction clauses are parameterized. Despite this, the check still
passes.
At least, this code looks more simple to understand, more 'armored' and
worth to change.
At the same time I think te
On 4/8/25 08:32, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 9:54 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 4/7/25 09:50, Richard Guo wrote:
Consider the join to t3. It is a unique join, and not all of its
restriction clauses are parameterized. Despite this, the check still
passes.
At the same time I th
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 9:54 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 4/7/25 09:50, Richard Guo wrote:
> > Consider the join to t3. It is a unique join, and not all of its
> > restriction clauses are parameterized. Despite this, the check still
> > passes.
> At the same time I think term 'Incorrect' is no
5 at 3:50 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> While reviewing another patch [1], I noticed an incorrect check in
> get_memoize_path.
>
> if (extra->inner_unique &&
> (inner_path->param_info == NULL ||
> bms_num_members(inner_path->param_info->ppi_ser
While reviewing another patch [1], I noticed an incorrect check in
get_memoize_path.
if (extra->inner_unique &&
(inner_path->param_info == NULL ||
bms_num_members(inner_path->param_info->ppi_serials) <
list_length(extra->restrictlist)))
