Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion during partition pruning

I wrote:
>> What it looks like to me is that the code for setting up run-time
>> partition pruning has failed to consider the possibility of nested
>> partitioning: it's expecting that every partitioned table will have
>> at least one direct child that is a leaf.  I'm not sure though
>> whether just the Assert is wrong, or there's more fundamental
>> issues here.

> After looking into the git history I realized that this assertion is
> quite new, stemming from David's a929e17e5a8 of 2020-11-02.  So there's
> something not right about that.

I took some more time to poke at this today, and I now think that
the assertion in make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo is probably OK,
and what it's pointing out is a bug upstream in path creation.
Specifically, I noted that in

select a from trigger_parted where pg_trigger_depth() <> a order by a;

we arrive at make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo with partrelids equal
to (b 1 2), which seems to be correct.  The RTE list is

RTE 1: trigger_parted
RTE 2: trigger_parted_p1
RTE 3: trigger_parted_p1_1

Like so much else of the partitioning code, AppendPath.partitioned_rels
is abysmally underdocumented, but what I think it means is the set of
non-leaf partitioned tables that are notionally scanned by the
AppendPath.  The only table directly mentioned by the AppendPath's
subpath is RTE 3, so that all seems fine.

However, upon adding a LIMIT:

select a from trigger_parted where pg_trigger_depth() <> a order by a limit 40;
server closed the connection unexpectedly

we arrive at make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo with partrelids equal
to just (b 1); trigger_parted_p1 has been left out.  The Path
in this case has been made by generate_orderedappend_paths, which
is what's responsible for computing AppendPath.partitioned_rels that
eventually winds up as the argument to make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo.
So I think that that code is somehow failing to account for nested
partitioning, while the non-ordered-append code is doing it right.
But I didn't spot exactly where the discrepancy is.

			regards, tom lane