Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Date
Msg-id 7784.1481221687@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe it would help for Jeff to use elog_node_display() to the nodes
> that are causing the problem - e.g. outerpathkeys and innerpathkeys
> and best_path->path_mergeclauses, or just best_path - at the point
> where the error is thrown. That might give us enough information to
> see what's broken.

I'll be astonished if that's sufficient evidence.  We already know that
the problem is that the input path doesn't claim to be sorted in a way
that would match the merge clauses, but that doesn't tell us how such
a path came to be generated (or, if it wasn't intentionally done, where
the data structure got clobbered later).

It's possible that setting a breakpoint at create_mergejoin_path and
capturing stack traces for all calls would yield usable insight.  But
there are likely to be lots of calls if this is an 8-way join query,
and probably only a few are wrong.

I'd much rather have a test case than try to debug this remotely.
Bandwidth too low.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.