Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins
Date
Msg-id 309288.1606250973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins  (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>  Tom> Looks about right. Not sure if we need to bother with a regression
>  Tom> test case; once that's in, it'd be hard to break it.

> We could check the EXPLAIN output (since the Materialize node would show
> up), but it's not easy to get stable plans since the choice of which
> path to put on the outside is not fixed. Based on what I found when
> actually testing the code, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

If it's not easy to test, I agree it's not worth it.

(Given how long it took anyone to notice this, the difficulty of
making a stable test case is unsurprising, perhaps.)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq compression