Re: BUG #18950: pgsql function that worked in Postgresql 16 does not return in Postgresql 17
| От | Lowell Hought |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #18950: pgsql function that worked in Postgresql 16 does not return in Postgresql 17 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAJtAGPpURGxCJRWVeFsPbu2fjtaSCwVsBNZ5_QW0wE5N6Z-N=Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #18950: pgsql function that worked in Postgresql 16 does not return in Postgresql 17 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #18950: pgsql function that worked in Postgresql 16 does not return in Postgresql 17
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
I can try. I am not sure how to go about that. I did not see on the bug report page where I could upload files, and I am afraid the file size of the tables needed might be too large for email. The entire database when written to an sql dump file is about 20 GB, so not terribly large. I could attempt to dump the schema definition in one file and then the underlying tables in another. Would that work? Or would you also need the files for the function and any views the query relies upon?
Lowell
On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 10:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Lowell Hought <lowell.hought@gmail.com> writes:
> Changing that parameter had no effect on the version 17 instance. The
> query itself produces results in a matter of a second or so, but the
> function still hangs and does not return.
Darn. But I'm still pretty sure that the problem is an undesirable
change of plan, and that we don't have enough information to say
more than that. Any chance you could extract a self-contained
test case?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: