Re: BUG #15669: Error with unnest in PG 11 (ERROR: 0A000)
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15669: Error with unnest in PG 11 (ERROR: 0A000) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOBaU_bs7hbXxtvncLmfX34E4V8KQia6M8KSt4Lf_hapZKQtQQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15669: Error with unnest in PG 11 (ERROR: 0A000) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15669: Error with unnest in PG 11 (ERROR: 0A000)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Sorry for late answer, On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > In v10 and later, not so much: Ouch, I should have followed more closely the comments and code in the dummy part. > BTW, I forgot to clarify that in unpatched v11 and HEAD, > this test case appears to work, but that's only because > apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths is forgetting to install the > ProjectSetPath that should be there (and then, because the outer > query now realizes that the inner one is dummy, we don't construct > a plan with any SRF calls in it, and thus avoid getting the error > reported at the top of this thread). I see. > With the patch discussed > so far, we get the same crummy plan as in v10. > > I spent a little bit of time musing over whether we could avoid > inserting a ProjectSetPath at all, which would be nice because > then we'd not emit a useless ProjectSet plan node. But that > seems like it'd require replacing the SRF call with something > else --- maybe a null constant of the right type --- and that > opens up a large can of worms in terms of getting setrefs.c > to not choke. I'm doubtful that it's worth the work at all, > and I certainly wouldn't risk back-patching it. I agree that the RelOptInfo new flag / IS_DUMMY_REL change solution is the best solution. Let's hope there won't be too many extensions relying on the old IS_DUMMY_REL() macro. I'll work on a new version of the patch to implement it. In the meantime I'll add an entry for this bug in the next commitfest to make sure we don't miss it.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: