| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |
| Date: | 2018-06-18 02:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_e2NksDAkLNSOZQFOV3o0P_7Fo96W6+VRTxw=tDApDJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 June 2018 at 14:36, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/06/15 20:41, David Rowley wrote:
>> If the top level Append is the UNION ALL one, then there won't be any
>> partitioned_rels. If that's what you mean by no-op then, yeah. There
>> are no duplicate locks already obtained in the parent with the child
>> Append node.
>
> Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I looked for whether the locks end up
> being taken twice, once in the UNION ALL parent's ExecInitAppend and then
> again in the individual child Appends' ExecInitAppend, but that they
> don't, so the patch is right.
Thanks for looking.
Robert, do you have any objections to the proposed patch?
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-06-18 04:22:09 | Re: Removing "Included attributes in B-tree indexes" section from docs |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-06-18 02:36:13 | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |