Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
Feliphe Pozzer <feliphepozzer@gmail.com>
From: Feliphe Pozzer <feliphepozzer@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-06-28T20:32:38Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Hello Tom, I applied the patch you suggested, and it appears that the issue has been resolved. Em sex., 28 de jun. de 2024 às 16:45, Feliphe Pozzer < feliphepozzer@gmail.com> escreveu: > I am currently in the process of familiarizing myself with the steps > required to compile and run the PostgreSQL code. As this will take some > time, I wanted to let you know that I will begin testing the patch as soon > as I am ready. Thank you for your understanding and patience. > > Em sex., 28 de jun. de 2024 às 16:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > escreveu: > >> PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: >> > Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated >> > regardless of using index scan or seq scan. >> > Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and >> > update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces >> the >> > use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly. >> >> I see that the problematic plan involves a Merge Right Anti Join step, >> which makes me guess that this is the same bug recently reported in >> >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18522-c7a8956126afdfd0%40postgresql.org >> >> Are you in a position to try the patch posted in that thread? >> >> regards, tom lane >> >