From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Parallel worker crash on seqscan |
Date: | 2016-11-21 17:14:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQTTa8=7zu1er-2+sQS4jYa9JYVb=89UmvQUc6t4oReg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> so what we've got is a case where a parameter computed by the FunctionScan
>>> (in the master) would need to be passed into the parallel workers at
>>> runtime. Do we have code for that at all? If so where is it?
>
>> No, that's not supposed to happen.
>
> OK, that makes this a planner failure: we should not have allowed this
> query to become parallelized.
>
>> Maybe it's checking the quals but not recursing into the tlist?
>
> It seems like maybe searching for individual Params is the wrong thing.
> Why are we allowing it to generate a parameterized Gather path at all?
> Given the lack of any way to transmit runtime param values to the worker,
> I can't see how that would ever work.
Hmm, so you're thinking it could be the job of generate_gather_paths()
to make sure we don't do that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-11-21 17:15:20 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-11-21 17:04:34 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |