From: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, zuming(dot)jiang(at)inf(dot)ethz(dot)ch, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18170: Unexpected error: no relation entry for relid 3 |
Date: | 2023-10-28 11:00:55 |
Message-ID: | b6fce1cd-3608-4188-b008-f90320e0f92d@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 28/10/2023 17:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>
>> It is a solution. But does it mask the real problem? In my mind, we copy
>> node trees to use somewhere else or probe a conjecture. Here, we have
>> two different representations of the same subquery. Keeping aside the
>> memory consumption issue, is it correct?
>> Make sense to apply both options: switch the groups estimation to
>> subroot targetList and keep one version of a subquery.
>> In attachment - second (combined) version of the change. Here I added
>> assertions to check identity of root->parse and incoming query tree.
>
> Andrei, did you read the comment just before the groups estimation as
> pointed by Tom [1]?
Yes, and I am a bit confused. We use here subroot->parse->targetList.
The processed_tlist, where we can find the "Varno 0" value, is based on
it, but it is different. As I see, forming processed_tlist, we make a
new node and don't change the original targetList. Am I wrong?
> * XXX you don't really want to know about this: we do the estimation
> * using the subquery's original targetlist expressions, not the
> * subroot->processed_tlist which might seem more appropriate. The
> * reason is that if the subquery is itself a setop, it may return a
> * processed_tlist containing "varno 0" Vars generated by
> * generate_append_tlist, and those would confuse estimate_num_groups
> * mightily. We ought to get rid of the "varno 0" hack, but that
> * requires a redesign of the parsetree representation of setops, so
> * that there can be an RTE corresponding to each setop's output.
>
> As I understand, it requires much more work to correctly switch the
> groups estimation to subroot targetList.
"Varno 0" is quite an irritating problem, which has beaten me a lot
before, during the development of the GROUP-BY optimization feature and
not only. I'd be glad to redesign this part of the planner. But I didn't
find an easy way to implement that yet.
--
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-28 15:38:37 | Re: COPY TO CSV produces data that is incompatible/unsafe for \COPY FROM CSV |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-10-28 10:10:52 | Re: BUG #18170: Unexpected error: no relation entry for relid 3 |