Re: BUG #15324: Non-deterministic behaviour from parallelised sub-query
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15324: Non-deterministic behaviour from parallelised sub-query |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LYn432goz+3YsctYLkTOZS08zzrkfMC85bhDWyaNBEeQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15324: Non-deterministic behaviour from parallelised sub-query (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15324: Non-deterministic behaviour from parallelised sub-query
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, let me summarize the problems which require patches: > > > (a) Consider the presence of a LIMIT/OFFSET in a sub-select as making > > > it parallel-unsafe. > > > > > > > As mentioned up-thread, I have considered adding a check in > > max_parallel_hazard_walker, but it turns out that it will make the > > whole query parallel-unsafe even if one of the sub-selects has > > Limit/Offset. I think the better idea is to detect that during > > set_rel_consider_parallel. Attached patch > > prohibit_parallel_limit_subselect_v2 implements the fix for same. > > > > I was trying this patch on back-branches and found that it doesn't > apply cleanly beyond PG11, so created separate patches for 10 and 9.6. > Further, I found that the test for this patch was not failing for > 9.6 (without the patch) even though the code doesn't deal with this > problem. On further investigation, I found that it is because the > commit > 655393a022bd653e2b48dbf20b69236981e35195 has not been backpatched to > 9.6. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't backpatch this commit. > So, I have attached a patch (fix_parallel_hash_path_v1.patch) which we > can backpatch in 9.6. > > Robert, your input will be highly appreciated here especially for the > back patch (to 9.6) I am proposing? > I have rebased the HEAD patch and done some cosmetic changes like improved the test by giving aliases to table names and modified the comment a bit, otherwise, the core logic remains the same. As the back-branch patches are just the matter of rebasing them, I will do that before commit. I am still waiting for input, but if there is none, my plan is to commit this in a day or two and back-patch it as well. Along with this, I would also like to back-patch commit 655393a022bd653e2b48dbf20b69236981e35195 for the reasons mentioned above. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: