On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks to me like traversal of the partial subpaths is the right
>>> thing here, in which case we should do
>>>
>>> - foreach(l, subpaths)
>>> + foreach(l, pathnode->subpaths)
>>>
>>> or perhaps better
>>>
>>> - pathnode->subpaths = list_concat(subpaths, partial_subpaths);
>>> + pathnode->subpaths = subpaths = list_concat(subpaths, partial_subpaths);
>>>
>>> to make the behavior clear and consistent.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with your analysis and proposed change. However, I think in
>> practice, it might not lead to any bug as in the loop, we are
>> computing parallel_safety and partial_subpaths should be
>> parallel_safe.
>
> Will have a look at this soon.
>
Did you get a chance to look at it? I have committed the patch which
fixes the problem reported in this thread, so I am inclined to close
the corresponding entry in Open Items list, but I am afraid that we
will lose track of this suggestion if I close it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
