Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-29 Thread Jim Nasby
On 4/28/13 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Thoughts? Anybody know of a counterexample to the idea that no plug-ins call query_planner()? I would assume that anyone writing anything that calls such a low-level function reads -hackers regularly and would easily be able to handle whatever changes to t

Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-28 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > The only alternative I can see is to make a back-patch that just teaches > get_eclass_for_sort_expr() to compute valid nullable_relids for the sort > expression. That's necessary code in any case, and it would fix the > immediately complained-of bug. The thing that scares me is that it

Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-12 Thread Tom Lane
"Dickson S. Guedes" writes: > In my tests, after ANALYZE _bug_header and _bug_line, the query plan > changes and query results returns as expected. Is this a chance that > things isn't too bad? No, it just means that in this particular scenario, the bug only manifests if a nestloop plan is chosen

Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-12 Thread Dickson S. Guedes
Em Sex, 2013-04-12 às 10:58 -0400, Tom Lane escreveu: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The plan I'm considering is to get this written and committed to HEAD > >> in the next week, so that it can go out in 9.3beta1. After the patch > >> has survived

Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-12 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The plan I'm considering is to get this written and committed to HEAD >> in the next week, so that it can go out in 9.3beta1. After the patch >> has survived a reasonable amount of beta testing, I'd be more comfortable >>

Re: [HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > This idea needs more fleshing out, but it's seeming awfully attractive > right now. The big problem with it is that it's going to be a more > invasive patch than I feel terribly comfortable about back-patching. > However, I'm not sure there's muc

[HACKERS] Analyzing bug 8049

2013-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
I looked into the problem reported at http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1upa3b-0004k0...@wrigleys.postgresql.org which is that we're deriving a bogus plan for this query: SELECT * FROM ( SELECT (COALESCE(h_n || '/', '') || l_n)::text AS fault FROM ( SELECT _bug_header.h_n, _bug_l