Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne.adam@nokia.com>,
PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>, "Duquesne,
Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <pierre.duquesne@nokia.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-08-17T15:09:19Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- execrescan_gathermerge_v3.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v3
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> I should think it wouldn't be that expensive to create a test >>>> case, if you already have test cases that invoke GatherMerge. >>>> Adding a right join against a VALUES clause with a small number of >>>> entries, and a non-mergeable/hashable join clause, ought to do it. >> >>> I have done some experiments based on this idea to generate a test, >>> but I think it is not as straightforward as it appears. >> >> I did this (the first 4 SETs duplicate what's already used in >> select_parallel.sql): >> >> regression=# set parallel_setup_cost=0; >> SET >> regression=# set parallel_tuple_cost=0; >> SET >> regression=# set min_parallel_table_scan_size=0; >> SET >> regression=# set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=4; >> SET >> regression=# set enable_hashagg TO 0; >> SET >> regression=# set enable_material TO 0; >> SET >> regression=# explain select * from (select string4, count((unique2)) >> from tenk1 group by string4 order by string4) ss right join >> (values(1),(2)) v(x) on true; >> QUERY PLAN >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=524.15..1086.77 rows=8 width=76) >> -> Values Scan on "*VALUES*" (cost=0.00..0.03 rows=2 width=4) >> -> Finalize GroupAggregate (cost=524.15..543.29 rows=4 width=72) >> Group Key: tenk1.string4 >> -> Gather Merge (cost=524.15..543.17 rows=16 width=72) >> Workers Planned: 4 >> -> Partial GroupAggregate (cost=524.10..542.89 rows=4 width=72) >> Group Key: tenk1.string4 >> -> Sort (cost=524.10..530.35 rows=2500 width=68) >> Sort Key: tenk1.string4 >> -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..383.00 rows=2500 width=68) >> (11 rows) >> >> regression=# select * from (select string4, count((unique2)) >> from tenk1 group by string4 order by string4) ss right join >> (values(1),(2)) v(x) on true; >> server closed the connection unexpectedly >> >> >> So, not only is it not that hard to reach ExecReScanGatherMerge, >> but there is indeed a bug to fix there somewhere. The stack >> trace indicates that the failure occurs in a later execution >> of ExecGatherMerge: >> > > This will be fixed by the patch [1] (execrescan_gathermerge_v2.patch) > I posted sometime back. The test case is slightly different, but may > I can re post the patch with your test case. > I have kept the fix as it is but changed the test to match your test. I think the another patch posted above to add a new guc for enable_gather is still relevant and important. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Separate reinitialization of shared parallel-scan state from ExecReScan.
- d6a149f4e6a1 10.0 landed
- 41b0dd987d44 11.0 landed
-
Restore test case from a2b70c89ca1a5fcf6181d3c777d82e7b83d2de1b.
- 6c2c5bea3cec 11.0 landed
- 5816ddc707e0 10.0 landed
-
Force rescanning of parallel-aware scan nodes below a Gather[Merge].
- 54eac6e8c552 10.0 landed
- 7df2c1f8daeb 11.0 landed
-
Fix ExecReScanGatherMerge.
- de1ca6919ff8 10.0 landed
- a2b70c89ca1a 11.0 landed
-
Add missing call to ExecReScanGatherMerge.
- 29990634c76a 10.0 landed
- 1295a777882b 11.0 landed