Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > No, I don't have a test case. I have tried a bit, but it seems even if > there is a problem, one needs to spend quite some time to generate an exact > test. I think the current patch fixes the reproducible problem

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > That seems doable, as for such rels we can only have

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > That seems doable, as for such rels we can only have Vars and > > PlaceHolderVars in targetlist. Basically, whenever we are adding > >

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > That seems doable, as for such rels we can only have Vars and > PlaceHolderVars in targetlist. Basically, whenever we are adding > PlaceHolderVars to a relation, just remember that information and use it > later. The

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Err, wow. That makes my head hurt. Can you explain why this case > >> only arises for appendrel children, and not for plain rels? > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Robert, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Err, wow. That makes my head hurt. Can you explain why this case >> only arises for appendrel children, and not for plain rels? > > Well, plain rels only output Vars ;-) Hmm. Dilip's example in

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > From the above output it is clear that parallel restricted function is > pushed down below gather node. I found that though we have have care fully > avoided to push pathtarget below GatherPath in

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 05:08:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Just to summarize, apart from above issue, we have discussed two different > issues related to parallel query in this thread. > a. Push down of parallel restricted clauses to nodes below gather. Patch > to fix same is posted upthread

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> Target list for a relation, you mean? See relation.h: > >> > >> * reltarget - Default Path output tlist for this rel; normally contains > >> * Var and

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > > Amit Kapila writes: > > > avoid_restricted_clause_below_gather_v1.patch > > prohibit_parallel_clause_below_rel_v1.patch > > I didn't observe any parallel worker related coredumps since applying > these. The same

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

Amit Kapila writes: > avoid_restricted_clause_below_gather_v1.patch > prohibit_parallel_clause_below_rel_v1.patch I didn't observe any parallel worker related coredumps since applying these. The same amount of testing done before applying them yielded about a dozend. Dilip Kumar writes: > So

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Here I want to ask base rels which are plain rels? > > It might be that I am missing something, but if we debug the serial plan > for original query [1] for which this issue is reported, we have noticed > that

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Robert Haas writes: > > >> Target list for a relation, you mean? See relation.h: > > >> > > >> * reltarget

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> Target list for a relation, you mean? See relation.h: > >> > >> * reltarget - Default Path output tlist for this rel; normally contains > >> * Var and

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

Robert Haas writes: >> Target list for a relation, you mean? See relation.h: >> >> * reltarget - Default Path output tlist for this rel; normally contains >> * Var and PlaceHolderVar nodes for the values we need to >> * output from

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I could be wrong, but I thought that the target list for an expression >> would always contain only Vars at this stage. Non-default tlists get >> injected at the end of

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

Robert Haas writes: > I could be wrong, but I thought that the target list for an expression > would always contain only Vars at this stage. Non-default tlists get > injected at the end of scan/join planning. Am I wrong? Target list for a relation, you mean? See

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On further analysis, I think I know what is going on in the original bug > report. We add the Vars (build_base_rel_tlists) and PlaceholderVars > (add_placeholders_to_base_rels()) to each relations (RelOptInfo) target

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Andreas Seltenreich writes: > > > when fuzz testing master as of c1543a8, parallel workers trigger the > > > following

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andreas Seltenreich writes: > > when fuzz testing master as of c1543a8, parallel workers trigger the > > following assertion in ExecInitSubPlan every couple hours. > > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(list !=

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

Andreas Seltenreich writes: > when fuzz testing master as of c1543a8, parallel workers trigger the > following assertion in ExecInitSubPlan every couple hours. > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(list != ((List *) ((void *)0)))", File: > "list.c", Line: 390) > Sample backtraces of

[HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker (ExecInitSubPlan)

Hi, when fuzz testing master as of c1543a8, parallel workers trigger the following assertion in ExecInitSubPlan every couple hours. TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(list != ((List *) ((void *)0)))", File: "list.c", Line: 390) Sample backtraces of a worker and leader below, plan of leader attached.