On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> This looks good.
>
> In attached revised patch, just added some comments in the changes that you did.
Committed, thanks. It's rather embarrassing that I didn't notice this
problem, because I did compare that logic with the preceding loop. I
concluded it was OK on the theory the previous loop would have already
given up if there were no partial plans. But that's wrong, of course:
the previous loop will not have given up if it grabbed the last plan
in a list of only non-partial plans. Oops.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
