Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that between this commit and the test-coverage commit from
>>> Andres, this open item is reasonably well addressed.  If someone
>>> thinks more needs to be done, please specify.  Thanks.
>>
>> How big a deal do we think test coverage is?  It looks like
>> ExecReScanGatherMerge is identical logic to ExecReScanGather,
>> which *is* covered according to coverage.postgresql.org, but
>> it wouldn't be too surprising if they diverge in future.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Another way to make it parallel is, add a new guc enable_gather
> similar to enable_gathermerge and then set that to off, it will prefer
> GatherMerge in that case.  I think it is anyway good to have such a
> guc.  I will go and do it this way unless you have a better idea.
>

Going by above, I have created two separate patches.  First to
introduce a new guc enable_gather and second patch to test the rescan
behavior of gather merge.  I have found a problem in the rescan path
of gather merge which is that it is not initializing the gather merge
state which is required to initialize the heap for processing of
tuples.  I think this should have been caught earlier, but probably I
didn't notice it because in the previous tests left side would not
have passed enough rows to hit this case.  I have fixed it in the
attached patch (execrescan_gathermerge_v2).

> Note - enable_gathermerge is not present in postgresql.conf. I think
> we should add it in the postgresql.conf.sample file.
>

Thomas has already posted a patch to handle this problem.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com