Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner
Date
Msg-id 5C876354.1000905@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
(2019/03/11 23:46), Tom Lane wrote:
> So this is
> just a plan-quality problem not a wrong-answer problem.
>
> However, I'd still argue for back-patching into v11, on the grounds
> that this is a regression from v10.  The example you just gave does
> produce the desired plan in v10, and I think it's more likely that
> people would complain about a regression from v10 than that they'd
> be unhappy because we changed it between 11.2 and 11.3.

Agreed.  I committed the patch to v11 and HEAD.  Thanks for reviewing!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits