From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | hisanori(dot)kobayashi(dot)bp(at)nttdata(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16500: SQL Abend. select multi_key_columns_range_partition_table |
Date: | 2020-07-03 17:35:52 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK14hoZJhBBSQoRKMUAxsp=uy0=gLGUg1BtejkF=k-dh8fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:52 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'll look at the patch more closely tomorrow.
I spent some time reviewing the patch, and noticed that the changes to
gen_prune_steps_from_opexps() break the logic in
get_matching_range_bounds(), causing another issue. Here is an
example:
postgres=# create table prefix_test (a int, b varchar) partition by
range (a, b);
postgres=# create table prefix_test1 partition of prefix_test for
values from (1, 'a') to (1, 'b');
postgres=# create table prefix_test2 partition of prefix_test for
values from (2, 'a') to (2, 'b');
postgres=# set enable_partition_pruning to on;
postgres=# explain select * from prefix_test where a <= 2 and b = 'a';
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on prefix_test2 prefix_test (cost=0.00..29.05 rows=2 width=36)
Filter: ((a <= 2) AND ((b)::text = 'a'::text))
(2 rows)
Will do a bit more investigation about this.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2020-07-03 20:25:38 | Re: BUG #16525: Problème de connexion serveur |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2020-07-03 16:01:46 | BUG #16526: pg_test_fsync in v12 doesn't run in Windows |