From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy |
Date: | 2024-02-15 16:28:23 |
Message-ID: | 3263261.1708014503@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> The following query:
> CREATE TABLE t (b bool, i int) PARTITION BY RANGE (b, i);
> CREATE TABLE tp PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (false, 0) TO (false, 1);
> SELECT * FROM t WHERE b IS NOT true;
> fails with ERROR: invalid strategy number 0.
> Reproduced on REL_12_STABLE .. master.
> The first bad commit for this anomaly is e0693faf7.
What seems to be happening is that gen_prune_step_op is getting
op_is_ne = true and doing this:
/*
* For clauses that contain an <> operator, set opstrategy to
* InvalidStrategy to signal get_matching_list_bounds to do the right
* thing.
*/
opstep->opstrategy = op_is_ne ? InvalidStrategy : opstrategy;
but then we're failing in get_matching_range_bounds, ie somebody
taught get_matching_list_bounds to do the right thing but not
any of the other code paths.
I'm also wondering how we got there in the first place. It looks like
match_boolean_partition_clause thinks it can translate "b IS NOT true"
to "b <> true", which is flat wrong --- it gives the wrong result for
null.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kline | 2024-02-15 16:29:32 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-15 16:10:00 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |