Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list"
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87efemzw0v.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is notin select list" (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list"
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
>>>>> "PG" == PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: PG> ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list PG> CONTEXT: Remote SQL command: EXPLAIN SELECT relid, schemaname, relname, PG> seq_scan, seq_tup_read, idx_scan, idx_tup_fetch, n_tup_ins, n_tup_upd, PG> n_tup_del, n_tup_hot_upd, n_live_tup, n_dead_tup, n_mod_since_analyze, PG> last_vacuum, last_autovacuum, last_analyze, last_autoanalyze, vacuum_count, PG> autovacuum_count, analyze_count, autoanalyze_count FROM PG> pg_catalog.pg_stat_user_tables ORDER BY 0 ASC NULLS LAST So what's happening here is that there's an equivalence class containing members "greatest(pg_catalog.pg_stat_user_tables.idx_scan, public.pg_stat_user_tables.idx_scan)" and "0" (as an integer constant), and somehow a pathkey for this eclass is becoming attached to the query going to the remote for statistics purposes. It seems obviously wrong that a constant pathkey with no actual reference to the foreign table should be being pushed down, so so far I suspect that get_useful_pathkeys_for_relation isn't being selective enough about what is "useful". In this context I find it suspicious that find_em_expr_for_rel will return an expr with no vars as being "for" every rel, since it's just looking for a subset. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: