Обсуждение: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

[GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Torsten Förtsch
Дата:
Hi,

this is a stock PGDG 9.6:

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select x from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;      
x  
---
1
2
(2 rows)

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select max(x) from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"

The same on 9.5:

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select x from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;      
x  
---
1
2
(2 rows)

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select max(x) from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
max  
-----
  2
(1 row)

Is this a bug or is my assumption that this should work wrong?

Both the aggregate and the UNION are required to trigger the bug:

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)) select x from (select x from i union all select 3::int) b;      
x  
---
1
3
(2 rows)

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)) select max(x) from (select x from i) b;                         
max  
-----
  1
(1 row)

postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)) select max(x) from (select x from i union all select 3::int) b;
ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"


Thanks,
Torsten

Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
=?UTF-8?Q?Torsten_F=C3=B6rtsch?= <tfoertsch123@gmail.com> writes:
> postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select
> x from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
> x
> ---
> 1
> 2
> (2 rows)

> postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select
> max(x) from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
> ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"

Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
expected before 9.5.  No idea offhand what broke it.

            regards, tom lane


Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Marc Mamin
Дата:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2016 16:32
> To: Torsten Förtsch
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Torsten_F=C3=B6rtsch?= <tfoertsch123@gmail.com> writes:
> > postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int))
> > select x from (select x from i union all select y from j) b; x
> > ---
> > 1
> > 2
> > (2 rows)
>
> > postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int))
> > select
> > max(x) from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
> > ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"
>
> Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
> expected before 9.5.  No idea offhand what broke it.
>
>             regards, tom lane


This is strange: using another aggreg. function works:

with i as (select 1::int x),
     j as (select 1::int x)
select
count(x) from (select x from i union all select x from j) b;
---
2

with i as (select 1::int x),
     j as (select 1::int x)
select
max(x) from (select x from i union all select x from j) b;
---
ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"

regards,
Marc Mamin


Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Torsten Förtsch
Дата:
Thanks for confirming.

Here are a few more examples that also work:

with i(x) as (values (1::int)) select x from (select x from i union all select 3::int) b order by x desc limit 1;

with i(x) as (values (1::int)) select max(x) from (select x from i union select 3::int) b;

It also works with EXCEPT or INTERSECT, both with or without ALL.

The UNION ALL version fails with MIN and MAX but it works with all other aggregates that I have tested.


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Torsten F\xC3=B6rtsch <tfoertsch123@gmail.com> writes:
> postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select
> x from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
> x
> ---
> 1
> 2
> (2 rows)

> postgres=# with i(x) as (values (1::int)), j(y) as (values (2::int)) select
> max(x) from (select x from i union all select y from j) b;
> ERROR:  could not find plan for CTE "i"

Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
expected before 9.5.  No idea offhand what broke it.

                        regards, tom lane

Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
I wrote:
> Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
> expected before 9.5.  No idea offhand what broke it.

The answer is, I broke it, through some ill-advised neatnik-ism :-(,
ie clearing a field I thought would be unused but it wasn't.

Fix pushed.  Thanks for the report!

            regards, tom lane


Re: [GENERAL] is this a known bug in 9.6?

От
Torsten Förtsch
Дата:
Thanks Tom

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
> Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
> expected before 9.5.  No idea offhand what broke it.

The answer is, I broke it, through some ill-advised neatnik-ism :-(,
ie clearing a field I thought would be unused but it wasn't.

Fix pushed.  Thanks for the report!

                        regards, tom lane