From: | Alena Rybakina <lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Oversight in reparameterize_path_by_child leading to executor crash |
Date: | 2023-10-19 18:52:00 |
Message-ID: | e41e3407-6e43-4ba3-8ad2-ead10ff442e9@yandex.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
Thank you for your work on the subject.
During review your patch I didn't understand why are you checking that
the variable is path and not new_path of type T_SamplePath (I
highlighted it)?
Path *
reparameterize_path_by_child(PlannerInfo *root, Path *path,
RelOptInfo *child_rel)
...
switch (nodeTag(path))
{
case T_Path:
new_path = path;
ADJUST_CHILD_ATTRS(new_path->parent->baserestrictinfo);
if (*path*->pathtype == T_SampleScan)
{
Is it a typo and should be new_path?
Besides, it may not be important, but reviewing your code all the time
stumbled on the statement of the comments while reading it (I
highlighted it too). This:
* path_is_reparameterizable_by_child
* Given a path parameterized by the parent of the given child
relation,
* see if it can be translated to be parameterized by the child
relation.
*
* This must return true if *and only if *reparameterize_path_by_child()
* would succeed on this path.
Maybe is it better to rewrite it simplier:
* This must return true *only if *reparameterize_path_by_child()
* would succeed on this path.
And can we add assert in reparameterize_pathlist_by_child function that
pathlist is not a NIL, because according to the comment it needs to be
added there:
Returns NIL to indicate failure, so pathlist had better not be NIL.
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2023-10-19 19:18:20 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-19 18:48:56 | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |