On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have rebased the HEAD patch and done some cosmetic changes like
> >> > improved the test by giving aliases to table names and modified the
> >> > comment a bit, otherwise, the core logic remains the same. As the
> >> > back-branch patches are just the matter of rebasing them, I will do
> >> > that before commit.
> >> >
> >> > I am still waiting for input, but if there is none, my plan is to
> >> > commit this in a day or two and back-patch it as well. Along with
> >> > this, I would also like to back-patch commit
> >> > 655393a022bd653e2b48dbf20b69236981e35195 for the reasons mentioned
> >> > above.
> >>
> >> I have reviewed and tested the patch. The patch looks fine to me and
> >> behaviour is as expected.
> >>
Thanks, pushed.
> >
> > Do you agree with my proposal to backpatch commit - 655393a022 to 9.6?
> >
>
> Although it was not giving any wrong output. However, this was a bug,
> due to which, it may not select the best parallel plan or completely
> miss some of the parallel paths so I will vote for backpatching it.
>
Okay, pushed the back-patch patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com