Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ibrar Ahmed
Subject Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN
Date
Msg-id CALtqXTfhC=FfHe0+_RP84w=X13d+z+akyN_ROCEQAyQigW7PDA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN  (Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN  (Aleksander Alekseev <afiskon@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:32 AM Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On 5/7/21 23:15, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:57 AM Andrey Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru <mailto:a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
> +            * Can't imagine situation when join relation already
> exists. But in
> +            * the 'partition_join' regression test it happens.
> +            * It may be an indicator of possible problems.
>
> Should a log be added in the above case ?
I worked more on this case and found more serious mistake. During
population of additional paths on the existed RelOptInfo we can remove
some previously generated paths that pointed from a higher-level list of
subplans and it could cause to lost of subplan links. I prohibit such
situation (you can read comments in the new version of the patch).
Also, choosing of a cheapest path after appendrel creation was added.
Unstable tests were fixed.

--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Patch is failing the regression, can you please take a look at that.

partition_join ... FAILED 6328 ms

--
Ibrar Ahmed

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
Next
From: Ibrar Ahmed
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?