On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 5:30 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... I don't quite get the point, because with my patch
> get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() would allow passing tuple
> fraction as either fraction of tuples or absolute number of tuples in
> the same way as grouping_planner() (see its header comment).
Now I see what you mean. However, I'm still not sure this is a better
approach, especially since the tuple fraction could end up being
calculated twice in the build_minmax_path() case. Also, I still don't
think the comment in your patch is correct. The comment for
get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() states:
* See compare_fractional_path_costs() for the interpretation of the fraction
* parameter.
However, in cases where the fraction is greater than 1,
compare_fractional_path_costs() interprets it as 1, whereas the
get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() function in your patch
interprets it as the absolute number of tuples to be retrieved.
> But given we need to backpatch this, we should avoid changing
> functions signatures. So, please, go ahead pushing your patch.
I've pushed and backpatched v2-0001. Thanks to everyone for the
reviews, and to Kuntal for the report and reproduction script.
I've also pushed 0002, but only to master. I'm a bit hesitant to
backpatch it given the lack of field complaints. If it later turns
out that a backpatch is needed, we can do that then.
- Richard
