| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-09-06 09:27:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_SJhri4w1=_=gNUSOzV2fgUkh0_fex2oyebMRwm1ANQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> static void
> label_sort_with_costsize(PlannerInfo *root, Sort *plan, double limit_tuples)
> {
> ...
> cost_sort(&sort_path, root, NIL,
> lefttree->total_cost,
> plan->plan.disabled_nodes,
> lefttree->plan_rows,
> lefttree->plan_width,
> 0.0,
> work_mem,
> limit_tuples);
>
> Given the cost_sort() declaration:
> void
> cost_sort(Path *path, PlannerInfo *root,
> List *pathkeys, int input_disabled_nodes,
> Cost input_cost, double tuples, int width,
> Cost comparison_cost, int sort_mem,
> double limit_tuples)
>
> Aren't the input_disabled_nodes and input_cost arguments swapped in the
> above call?
Nice catch! I checked other callers to cost_sort, and they are all
good.
(I'm a little surprised that this does not cause any plan diffs in the
regression tests.)
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-09-06 09:42:20 | Re: Typos in the code and README |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-09-06 09:00:00 | Re: On disable_cost |