From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Onder Kalaci <onderk(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |
Date: | 2020-10-18 23:18:14 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvqgX-13qMvr1Fqr_x9oEEtyMiwJRBZc-s7irjZz16Zb5A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 12:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > For the backbranches, I think I go with something more minimal in the
> > form of adding:
>
> TBH, I see no need to do anything in the back branches. This is not
> an issue for production usage.
I understand the Assert failure is pretty harmless, so non-assert
builds shouldn't suffer too greatly. I just assumed that any large
stakeholders invested in upgrading to a newer version of PostgreSQL
may like to run various tests with their application against an assert
enabled version of PostgreSQL perhaps to gain some confidence in the
upgrade. A failing assert is unlikely to inspire additional
confidence.
I'm not set on backpatching, but that's just my thoughts.
FWIW, the patch I'd thought of is attached.
David
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Fix-Assert-failure-in-join-costing-code.patch | text/plain | 3.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-18 23:25:13 | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-18 23:10:06 | Re: Assertion failure with LEFT JOINs among >500 relations |