| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <akuzmenkov(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |
| Date: | 2025-03-05 11:12:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2Wg10x+GMk5Xv19he_X34SgOO3mOWcfJ1rUgJfrNv+5ttQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 at 01:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > Is everybody in agreement about committing and back patching this fix,
> > which simply disables the optimization altogether?
> > I myself don't see a better way, but thought I'd ask before proceeding
> > with review and commit.
>
> If you don't see a clear path forward, then "disable" is the only
> reasonable choice for the back branches. Maybe we'll find a fix
> in future, but it seems unlikely that it'd be back-patchable.
Agreed.
Here's patch v5 for the master branch (now up to f4694e0f), with no
interesting changes other than fixing apply conflicts caused by
bfe56cdf.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0002-isolationtester-showing-broken-index-only-bitmap-.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.4 KB |
| v5-0001-Remove-HeapBitmapScan-s-skip_fetch-optimization.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-03-05 11:20:04 | Re: Considering fractional paths in Append node |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-03-05 11:08:16 | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins |