Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> This approach is far more solid than my previous stuff and makes the
> approach I took really brittle...
Hey, the idea to add a field was mine, so don't beat yourself up about
it :-). Sometimes it takes working out an idea to realize it's bad.
> Looking at your code, I am wondering if
> it would not be safer to add some assertions in find_childrel_top_parent
> and find_childrel_parents, something like a check on RELOPT_BASEREL for
> rel->reloptkind before returning a result. Er, those new functions should
> always finishing by scanning a base rel, right?
Yeah, not a bad idea.
> Btw, this code will need minor adjustments for REL9_2_STABLE and
> REL9_3_STABLE. Is a backpatch down to 9.1 to be considered?
The bugs we're working on here are definitely demonstrable back to 9.2.
I'm not sure about 9.1 yet; but considering that a87c72915 had to get
back-patched as far as 9.1, there may well be some manifestations of
these problems visible in 9.1. (The new regression test that I wrote
doesn't seem to show any big problems there, but maybe I'm just short
a case or two.)
regards, tom lane
