Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix EXPLAIN of SEARCH BREADTH FIRST queries some more.

  2. Fix EXPLAIN to handle SEARCH BREADTH FIRST queries.

  3. Message style improvements

  1. EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> — 2021-09-07T03:41:02Z

    Hi,

While working on [1], we found that EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH 
BREADTH FIRST ends up ERROR.

This can be reproduced at the current HEAD(4c3478859b7359912d7):

   =# create table graph0( f int, t int, label text);
   CREATE TABLE

   =# insert into graph0 values (1, 2, 'arc 1 -> 2'),(1, 3, 'arc 1 -> 
3'),(2, 3, 'arc 2 -> 3'),(1, 4, 'arc 1 -> 4'),(4, 5, 'arc 4 -> 5');
   INSERT 0 5

   =# explain(verbose) with recursive search_graph(f, t, label) as (
       select * from graph0 g
       union all
       select g.*
       from graph0 g, search_graph sg
       where g.f = sg.t
   ) search breadth first by f, t set seq
   select * from search_graph order by seq;
   ERROR:  failed to find plan for CTE sg

Is this a bug?


[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/cf8501bcd95ba4d727cbba886ba9eea8@oss.nttdata.com

Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  2. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-09-07T18:31:33Z

    torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
> While working on [1], we found that EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH 
> BREADTH FIRST ends up ERROR.

Yeah.  It's failing here:

                     * We're deparsing a Plan tree so we don't have a CTE
                     * list.  But the only place we'd see a Var directly
                     * referencing a CTE RTE is in a CteScan plan node, and we
                     * can look into the subplan's tlist instead.

                    if (!dpns->inner_plan)
                        elog(ERROR, "failed to find plan for CTE %s",
                             rte->eref->aliasname);

The problematic Var is *not* in a CteScan plan node; it's in a
WorkTableScan node.  It's not clear to me whether this is a bug
in the planner's handling of SEARCH BREADTH FIRST, or if the plan
is as-intended and ruleutils.c is failing to cope.

Either way, this deserves an open item...

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> — 2021-09-09T10:03:09Z

    On 07.09.21 20:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
>> While working on [1], we found that EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH
>> BREADTH FIRST ends up ERROR.
> 
> Yeah.  It's failing here:
> 
>                       * We're deparsing a Plan tree so we don't have a CTE
>                       * list.  But the only place we'd see a Var directly
>                       * referencing a CTE RTE is in a CteScan plan node, and we
>                       * can look into the subplan's tlist instead.
> 
>                      if (!dpns->inner_plan)
>                          elog(ERROR, "failed to find plan for CTE %s",
>                               rte->eref->aliasname);
> 
> The problematic Var is *not* in a CteScan plan node; it's in a
> WorkTableScan node.  It's not clear to me whether this is a bug
> in the planner's handling of SEARCH BREADTH FIRST, or if the plan
> is as-intended and ruleutils.c is failing to cope.

The search clause is resolved by the rewriter, so it's unlikely that the 
planner is doing something wrong.  Either the rewriting produces 
something incorrect (but then one might expect that the query results 
would be wrong), or the structures constructed by rewriting are not 
easily handled by ruleutils.c.

If we start from the example in the documentation 
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/queries-with.html#QUERIES-WITH-RECURSIVE>:

"""
WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, depth) AS (
     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, 0
     FROM tree t
   UNION ALL
     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, depth + 1
     FROM tree t, search_tree st
     WHERE t.id = st.link
)
SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY depth;

To get a stable sort, add data columns as secondary sorting columns.
"""

In order to handle that part about the stable sort, the query 
constructed internally is something like

WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, seq) AS (
     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(0, id, link)
     FROM tree t
   UNION ALL
     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(seq.depth + 1, id, link)
     FROM tree t, search_tree st
     WHERE t.id = st.link
)
SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY seq;

The bit "seq.depth" isn't really valid when typed in like that, I think, 
but of course internally this is all wired together with numbers rather 
than identifiers.  I suspect that that is what ruleutils.c trips over.

  4. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> — 2021-09-10T14:10:43Z

    On 2021-09-09 19:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.09.21 20:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
>>> While working on [1], we found that EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with 
>>> SEARCH
>>> BREADTH FIRST ends up ERROR.
>> 
>> Yeah.  It's failing here:
>> 
>>                       * We're deparsing a Plan tree so we don't have a 
>> CTE
>>                       * list.  But the only place we'd see a Var 
>> directly
>>                       * referencing a CTE RTE is in a CteScan plan 
>> node, and we
>>                       * can look into the subplan's tlist instead.
>> 
>>                      if (!dpns->inner_plan)
>>                          elog(ERROR, "failed to find plan for CTE %s",
>>                               rte->eref->aliasname);
>> 
>> The problematic Var is *not* in a CteScan plan node; it's in a
>> WorkTableScan node.  It's not clear to me whether this is a bug
>> in the planner's handling of SEARCH BREADTH FIRST, or if the plan
>> is as-intended and ruleutils.c is failing to cope.
> 
> The search clause is resolved by the rewriter, so it's unlikely that
> the planner is doing something wrong.  Either the rewriting produces
> something incorrect (but then one might expect that the query results
> would be wrong), or the structures constructed by rewriting are not
> easily handled by ruleutils.c.
> 
> If we start from the example in the documentation
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/queries-with.html#QUERIES-WITH-RECURSIVE>:
> 
> """
> WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, depth) AS (
>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, 0
>     FROM tree t
>   UNION ALL
>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, depth + 1
>     FROM tree t, search_tree st
>     WHERE t.id = st.link
> )
> SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY depth;
> 
> To get a stable sort, add data columns as secondary sorting columns.
> """
> 
> In order to handle that part about the stable sort, the query
> constructed internally is something like
> 
> WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, seq) AS (
>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(0, id, link)
>     FROM tree t
>   UNION ALL
>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(seq.depth + 1, id, link)
>     FROM tree t, search_tree st
>     WHERE t.id = st.link
> )
> SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY seq;
> 
> The bit "seq.depth" isn't really valid when typed in like that, I
> think, but of course internally this is all wired together with
> numbers rather than identifiers.  I suspect that that is what
> ruleutils.c trips over.

Thanks for your advice, it seems right.

EXPLAIN VERBOSE can be output without error when I assigned testing 
purpose CoercionForm to 'seq.depth + 1'.

I've attached the patch for the changes made for this test for your 
reference, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for creating a new 
CoercionForm to fix the issue..

-- 
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  5. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2021-09-15T15:05:02Z

    On 9/10/21 10:10 AM, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2021-09-09 19:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 07.09.21 20:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
>>>> While working on [1], we found that EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with
>>>> SEARCH
>>>> BREADTH FIRST ends up ERROR.
>>>
>>> Yeah.  It's failing here:
>>>
>>>                       * We're deparsing a Plan tree so we don't have
>>> a CTE
>>>                       * list.  But the only place we'd see a Var
>>> directly
>>>                       * referencing a CTE RTE is in a CteScan plan
>>> node, and we
>>>                       * can look into the subplan's tlist instead.
>>>
>>>                      if (!dpns->inner_plan)
>>>                          elog(ERROR, "failed to find plan for CTE %s",
>>>                               rte->eref->aliasname);
>>>
>>> The problematic Var is *not* in a CteScan plan node; it's in a
>>> WorkTableScan node.  It's not clear to me whether this is a bug
>>> in the planner's handling of SEARCH BREADTH FIRST, or if the plan
>>> is as-intended and ruleutils.c is failing to cope.
>>
>> The search clause is resolved by the rewriter, so it's unlikely that
>> the planner is doing something wrong.  Either the rewriting produces
>> something incorrect (but then one might expect that the query results
>> would be wrong), or the structures constructed by rewriting are not
>> easily handled by ruleutils.c.
>>
>> If we start from the example in the documentation
>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/queries-with.html#QUERIES-WITH-RECURSIVE>:
>>
>>
>> """
>> WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, depth) AS (
>>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, 0
>>     FROM tree t
>>   UNION ALL
>>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, depth + 1
>>     FROM tree t, search_tree st
>>     WHERE t.id = st.link
>> )
>> SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY depth;
>>
>> To get a stable sort, add data columns as secondary sorting columns.
>> """
>>
>> In order to handle that part about the stable sort, the query
>> constructed internally is something like
>>
>> WITH RECURSIVE search_tree(id, link, data, seq) AS (
>>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(0, id, link)
>>     FROM tree t
>>   UNION ALL
>>     SELECT t.id, t.link, t.data, ROW(seq.depth + 1, id, link)
>>     FROM tree t, search_tree st
>>     WHERE t.id = st.link
>> )
>> SELECT * FROM search_tree ORDER BY seq;
>>
>> The bit "seq.depth" isn't really valid when typed in like that, I
>> think, but of course internally this is all wired together with
>> numbers rather than identifiers.  I suspect that that is what
>> ruleutils.c trips over.
>
> Thanks for your advice, it seems right.
>
> EXPLAIN VERBOSE can be output without error when I assigned testing
> purpose CoercionForm to 'seq.depth + 1'.
>
> I've attached the patch for the changes made for this test for your
> reference, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for creating a new
> CoercionForm to fix the issue..



This is listed as an open item for release 14. Is it planned to commit
the patch? If not, we should close the item.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

  6. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-09-15T15:28:28Z

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 9/10/21 10:10 AM, torikoshia wrote:
>> I've attached the patch for the changes made for this test for your
>> reference, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for creating a new
>> CoercionForm to fix the issue..

> This is listed as an open item for release 14. Is it planned to commit
> the patch? If not, we should close the item.

I do not think that patch is a proper solution, but we do need to do
something about this.

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-09-15T23:40:31Z

    I wrote:
> I do not think that patch is a proper solution, but we do need to do
> something about this.

I poked into this and decided it's an ancient omission within ruleutils.c.
The reason we've not seen it before is probably that you can't get to the
case through the parser.  The SEARCH stuff is generating a query structure
basically equivalent to

regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
union all                                                   
select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
)                                      
select * from cte;
ERROR:  record type has not been registered

and as you can see, expandRecordVariable fails to figure out what
the referent of "c.r" is.  I think that could be fixed (by looking
into the non-recursive term), but given the lack of field demand,
I'm not feeling that it's urgent.

So the omission is pretty obvious from the misleading comment:
actually, Vars referencing RTE_CTE RTEs can also appear in WorkTableScan
nodes, and we're not doing anything to support that.  But we only reach
this code when trying to resolve a field of a Var of RECORD type, which
is a case that it seems like the parser can't produce.

It doesn't look too hard to fix: we just have to find the RecursiveUnion
that goes with the WorkTableScan, and drill down into that, much as we
would do in the CteScan case.  See attached draft patch.  I'm too tired
to beat on this heavily or add a test case, but I have verified that it
passes check-world and handles the example presented in this thread.

			regards, tom lane

  8. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2021-09-16T13:15:43Z

    On 9/15/21 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I do not think that patch is a proper solution, but we do need to do
>> something about this.
> I poked into this and decided it's an ancient omission within ruleutils.c.
> The reason we've not seen it before is probably that you can't get to the
> case through the parser.  The SEARCH stuff is generating a query structure
> basically equivalent to
>
> regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
> select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
> union all                                                   
> select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
> )                                      
> select * from cte;
> ERROR:  record type has not been registered
>
> and as you can see, expandRecordVariable fails to figure out what
> the referent of "c.r" is.  I think that could be fixed (by looking
> into the non-recursive term), but given the lack of field demand,
> I'm not feeling that it's urgent.
>
> So the omission is pretty obvious from the misleading comment:
> actually, Vars referencing RTE_CTE RTEs can also appear in WorkTableScan
> nodes, and we're not doing anything to support that.  But we only reach
> this code when trying to resolve a field of a Var of RECORD type, which
> is a case that it seems like the parser can't produce.
>
> It doesn't look too hard to fix: we just have to find the RecursiveUnion
> that goes with the WorkTableScan, and drill down into that, much as we
> would do in the CteScan case.  See attached draft patch.  I'm too tired
> to beat on this heavily or add a test case, but I have verified that it
> passes check-world and handles the example presented in this thread.
>
> 			


Looks like a nice simple fix. Thanks for working on this.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

  9. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com> — 2021-09-16T16:53:07Z

    På torsdag 16. september 2021 kl. 01:40:31, skrev Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
<mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: 
[...]
 regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
 select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
 union all 
 select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
 ) 
 select * from cte;
 ERROR: record type has not been registered 




FWIW; I saw this Open Item was set to fixed, but I'm still getting this error 
in 388726753b638fb9938883bdd057b2ffe6f950f5 

--
 Andreas Joseph Krogh

  10. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-09-16T16:57:39Z

    Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com> writes:
> På torsdag 16. september 2021 kl. 01:40:31, skrev Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: 
> [...]
>  regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
>  select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
>  union all 
>  select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
>  ) 
>  select * from cte;
>  ERROR: record type has not been registered 

> FWIW; I saw this Open Item was set to fixed, but I'm still getting this error 
> in 388726753b638fb9938883bdd057b2ffe6f950f5 

The open item was not about that parser shortcoming, nor did this patch
claim to fix it.

			regards, tom lane

  11. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com> — 2021-09-16T17:29:14Z

    På torsdag 16. september 2021 kl. 18:57:39, skrev Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
<mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: 
[...]
 > FWIW; I saw this Open Item was set to fixed, but I'm still getting this 
error
 > in 388726753b638fb9938883bdd057b2ffe6f950f5

 The open item was not about that parser shortcoming, nor did this patch
 claim to fix it.

 regards, tom lane 

Ok, sorry for the noise. 



--
 Andreas Joseph Krogh

  12. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> — 2021-09-21T12:43:14Z

    On 2021-09-16 08:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I do not think that patch is a proper solution, but we do need to do
>> something about this.
> 
> I poked into this and decided it's an ancient omission within 
> ruleutils.c.
> The reason we've not seen it before is probably that you can't get to 
> the
> case through the parser.  The SEARCH stuff is generating a query 
> structure
> basically equivalent to
> 
> regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
> select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
> union all
> select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
> )
> select * from cte;
> ERROR:  record type has not been registered
> 
> and as you can see, expandRecordVariable fails to figure out what
> the referent of "c.r" is.  I think that could be fixed (by looking
> into the non-recursive term), but given the lack of field demand,
> I'm not feeling that it's urgent.
> 
> So the omission is pretty obvious from the misleading comment:
> actually, Vars referencing RTE_CTE RTEs can also appear in 
> WorkTableScan
> nodes, and we're not doing anything to support that.  But we only reach
> this code when trying to resolve a field of a Var of RECORD type, which
> is a case that it seems like the parser can't produce.
> 
> It doesn't look too hard to fix: we just have to find the 
> RecursiveUnion
> that goes with the WorkTableScan, and drill down into that, much as we
> would do in the CteScan case.  See attached draft patch.  I'm too tired
> to beat on this heavily or add a test case, but I have verified that it
> passes check-world and handles the example presented in this thread.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane

Thanks for looking into this and fixing it!

-- 
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  13. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Markus Winand <markus.winand@winand.at> — 2021-10-11T10:22:41Z

    Hi!

It seems like this patch causes another problem.

If I explain a simple row generator **without** verbose, it fails:

postgres=# EXPLAIN (VERBOSE FALSE)
           WITH RECURSIVE gen (n)  AS (
                  VALUES (1)
           UNION ALL
                  SELECT n+1
                    FROM gen
                   WHERE n < 3
           )
           SELECT * FROM gen
           ;
ERROR:  could not find RecursiveUnion for WorkTableScan with wtParam 0

That’s the new error message introduced by the patch.

The same with verbose works just fine:

postgres=# EXPLAIN (VERBOSE TRUE)
           WITH RECURSIVE gen (n)  AS (
                  VALUES (1)
           UNION ALL
                  SELECT n+1
                    FROM gen
                   WHERE n < 3
           )
           SELECT * FROM gen
           ;
                                 QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CTE Scan on gen  (cost=2.95..3.57 rows=31 width=4)
   Output: gen.n
   CTE gen
     ->  Recursive Union  (cost=0.00..2.95 rows=31 width=4)
           ->  Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=4)
                 Output: 1
           ->  WorkTable Scan on gen gen_1  (cost=0.00..0.23 rows=3 width=4)
                 Output: (gen_1.n + 1)
                 Filter: (gen_1.n < 3)
(9 rows)

Both variants work fine before that patch (4ac0f450b698442c3273ddfe8eed0e1a7e56645f).

Markus Winand
winand.at

> On 21.09.2021, at 14:43, torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-09-16 08:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I do not think that patch is a proper solution, but we do need to do
>>> something about this.
>> I poked into this and decided it's an ancient omission within ruleutils.c.
>> The reason we've not seen it before is probably that you can't get to the
>> case through the parser.  The SEARCH stuff is generating a query structure
>> basically equivalent to
>> regression=# with recursive cte (x,r) as (
>> select 42 as x, row(i, 2.3) as r from generate_series(1,3) i
>> union all
>> select x, row((c.r).f1, 4.5) from cte c
>> )
>> select * from cte;
>> ERROR:  record type has not been registered
>> and as you can see, expandRecordVariable fails to figure out what
>> the referent of "c.r" is.  I think that could be fixed (by looking
>> into the non-recursive term), but given the lack of field demand,
>> I'm not feeling that it's urgent.
>> So the omission is pretty obvious from the misleading comment:
>> actually, Vars referencing RTE_CTE RTEs can also appear in WorkTableScan
>> nodes, and we're not doing anything to support that.  But we only reach
>> this code when trying to resolve a field of a Var of RECORD type, which
>> is a case that it seems like the parser can't produce.
>> It doesn't look too hard to fix: we just have to find the RecursiveUnion
>> that goes with the WorkTableScan, and drill down into that, much as we
>> would do in the CteScan case.  See attached draft patch.  I'm too tired
>> to beat on this heavily or add a test case, but I have verified that it
>> passes check-world and handles the example presented in this thread.
>> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> Thanks for looking into this and fixing it!
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Atsushi Torikoshi
> NTT DATA CORPORATION
> 
> 
> 
>

  14. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> — 2021-10-11T14:27:03Z

    On 11.10.21 12:22, Markus Winand wrote:
> Both variants work fine before that patch (4ac0f450b698442c3273ddfe8eed0e1a7e56645f).

That commit is a message wording patch.  Are you sure you meant that one?

  15. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Markus Winand <markus.winand@winand.at> — 2021-10-11T14:32:16Z

    > On 11.10.2021, at 16:27, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11.10.21 12:22, Markus Winand wrote:
>> Both variants work fine before that patch (4ac0f450b698442c3273ddfe8eed0e1a7e56645f).
> 
> That commit is a message wording patch.  Are you sure you meant that one?
> 

What I meant is that it was still working on 4ac0f450b698442c3273ddfe8eed0e1a7e56645f, but not on the next (3f50b82639637c9908afa2087de7588450aa866b).

-markus

  16. Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-10-11T14:57:26Z

    Markus Winand <markus.winand@winand.at> writes:
> What I meant is that it was still working on 4ac0f450b698442c3273ddfe8eed0e1a7e56645f, but not on the next (3f50b82639637c9908afa2087de7588450aa866b).

Yeah, silly oversight in that patch.  Will push a fix shortly.

			regards, tom lane