From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, v(dot)g(dot)baranoff(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15336: Wrong cursor's bacward fetch results in select with ALL(subquery) |
Date: | 2018-08-17 10:27:46 |
Message-ID: | 87va892tf5.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
>>>>> "PG" == PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
PG> fetch backward 9 from "mycursor";
PG> commit;
PG> The result set is wrong (9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1).
PG> It seems that selection predicate is ignored.
PG> This bug has been reproduced with PostgreSQL 9.6 and 10.0
I wonder if we have a contender here for the oldest reported bug in PG
history; while I haven't tested anything older than 9.5, the incorrect
logic seems to date back to the introduction of subqueries in
6.something.
Here is a simpler test case:
begin;
declare foo cursor for select * from generate_series(1,3) i where i <> all (values (2));
fetch all from foo; -- returns the expected 2 rows
fetch backward all from foo; -- assertion failure, or incorrect result
The problem is that the scan direction is being set to "backward" in the
EState, and as a result the subquery evaluation is run in the backward
direction too, which obviously doesn't do anything sensible. The
assertion failure is from the tuplestore code complaining about doing a
backward fetch on a tuplestore not initialized for backward access.
I'm really not sure yet what the correct fix is, though.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-08-17 11:21:30 | Re: BUG #15334: Partition elimination not working as expected when using enum as partition key |
Previous Message | Damir Ciganović-Janković | 2018-08-17 10:10:41 | Re: BUG #15334: Partition elimination not working as expected when using enum as partition key |