On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the Param case should be mentioned after "... but" not before
>> - i.e. referencing the child node's output... but setrefs.c might also
>> have copied a Const or Param is-is.
>
> I am not sure if we can write the comment like that (.. copied a Const
> or Param as-is.) because fix_upper_expr_mutator in setrefs.c has a
> special handling for Var and Param where constants are copied as-is
> via expression_tree_mutator. Also as proposed, the handling for
> params is more like Var in exec_save_simple_expr.
I committed fix_parallel_mode_nested_execution_v2.patch with some
cosmetic tweaks. I back-patched it to 10 and 9.6, then had to fix
some issues reported by Tom as followup commits.
With respect to the bit quoted above, I rephrased the comment in a
slightly different way that hopefully is a reasonable compromise,
combined it with the main patch, and pushed it to master. Along the
way I also got rid of the if statement you introduced and just made
the Assert() more complicated instead, which seems better to me.
When I tried back-porting the patch to v10 I discovered that the
plpgsql changes conflict heavily and that ripping them out all the way
produces regression failures under force_parallel_mode. I think I see
why that's happening but it's not obvious how to me how to adapt
b73f1b5c29e0ace5a281bc13ce09dea30e1b66de to the v10 code. Do you want
to have a crack at it or should we just leave this as a master-only
fix?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
