Re: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Martin Kos <martin(dot)kos(at)molecularhealth(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables
Date: 2022-02-22 15:45:08
Message-ID: 701248.1645544708@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This seems like a decent report (haven’t played with it), still, version
> 11.1!

Indeed. I can't see any problem in 11.current --- for me, the first
four queries all give 44272445, the next 72002328, and the last two
60000000. So either we fixed it since 11.1, or the problem requires
some nondefault setting that wasn't mentioned. I'm not particularly
interested in bisecting to see where it was fixed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin Kos 2022-02-22 16:16:18 RE: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2022-02-22 14:21:05 Re: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables