From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "variable not found in subplan target list" |
Date: | 2023-03-30 10:53:25 |
Message-ID: | 20230330105325.y6uvpalspynf2frt@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 3:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > > So I'm back home and found a couple more weird errors in the log:
> >
> > > ERROR: mismatching PartitionPruneInfo found at part_prune_index 0
> > > DETALLE: plan node relids (b 1), pruneinfo relids (b 36)
> >
> > This one reproduces for me.
>
> I've looked into this one and the attached patch fixes it for me.
> Turns out set_plan_refs()'s idea of when the entries from
> PlannerInfo.partPruneInfos are transferred into
> PlannerGlobal.partPruneInfo was wrong.
Thanks for the patch. I've pushed it to github for CI testing, and if
there are no problems I'll put it in.
> Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the
> notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1]
> has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that
> doesn't require hacking up the pruning code.
Hmm, that's indeed tempting.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-03-30 11:08:56 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-03-30 10:31:47 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |