Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Phil Florent <philflorent@hotmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-08-01T23:48:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Match RelOptInfos by relids not pointer equality.
- a3deecb1c9af 11.0 landed
- 11e22e486d8d 12.0 landed
-
Fix run-time partition pruning for appends with multiple source rels.
- 1b54e91faabf 11.0 landed
- 1c2cb2744bf3 12.0 landed
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 20 July 2018 at 01:03, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I've attached a patch intended for master which is just v2 based on >> post 5220bb7533. I've pushed the v3 patch with a lot of editorial work (e.g. cleaning up comments you hadn't). I still want to think about getting rid of some of the "extraneous" bitmapsets and lists that are running around here ... but time grows short before beta3, and it's not clear that that would be appropriate material to push into v11 anyway. > In [1] I mentioned that I think that bug should be fixed as part of > this bug fix too. I didn't include this change because (a) it's late, (b) no test case was included, and (c) I don't entirely believe it anyway. How would a rel be both leaf and nonleaf? Isn't this indicative of a problem somewhere upstream in the planner? regards, tom lane