Horton

Re: Incorrect calculation of path fraction value in MergeAppend

Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2025-05-07T23:58:17Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix tuple_fraction calculation in generate_orderedappend_paths()

  2. Consider fractional paths in generate_orderedappend_paths

On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 2:42 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2025 12:45, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>  > On 2025-May-07, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>  >> The magic is how it finds a link to the thread. This time it doesn't
>  > Weird, that doesn't seem to work very well if you try to search for
>  > stuff.  But if you just specify the Message-Id without clicking
>  > "search" then it works.  So here you go:
>  > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5742/
> Thanks! I think this memo should be pinned at the top of the page.
>
> On 7/5/2025 17:35, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > + /* Convert absolute limit to a path fraction */
> > + if (path_fraction >= 1.)
> > + path_fraction /= childrel->rows;
> >
> > maybe add `&& childrel->rows > 0.` to the if condition to
> > avoid potential crash. I'm not sure if `childrel->rows` will
> > be 0 but I see get_cheapest_fractional_path did this.
> You may look at the 76281aa for the reason. Also, looking into the code,
> I see that it is impossible now to find more places with rows == 0
> except for the Dummy result node. Moreover, it just doesn't make sense
> in the case of append nodes: why should the optimiser spend resources
> and consider paths if it is impossible to pull any tuples from the subplan?
>
> So, I think checking assertion instead would be the better option. See
> new version in the attachment.

Agree, assertion is better, the new version LGTM.

>
> --
> regards, Andrei Lepikhov



-- 
Regards
Junwang Zhao