On 20 June 2018 at 14:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks to me like traversal of the partial subpaths is the right
>>>> thing here, in which case we should do
>>>>
>>>> - foreach(l, subpaths)
>>>> + foreach(l, pathnode->subpaths)
>>>>
>>>> or perhaps better
>>>>
>>>> - pathnode->subpaths = list_concat(subpaths, partial_subpaths);
>>>> + pathnode->subpaths = subpaths = list_concat(subpaths, partial_subpaths);
>>>>
>>>> to make the behavior clear and consistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with your analysis and proposed change. However, I think in
>>> practice, it might not lead to any bug as in the loop, we are
>>> computing parallel_safety and partial_subpaths should be
>>> parallel_safe.
>>
>> Will have a look at this soon.
>>
>
> Did you get a chance to look at it?
Not yet, but I have planned to do this by tomorrow.
> I have committed the patch which
> fixes the problem reported in this thread, so I am inclined to close
> the corresponding entry in Open Items list, but I am afraid that we
> will lose track of this suggestion if I close it.
Yes I agree.
--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company