David Rowley wrote in https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8o2Yd=rOP=et3a0fwgf+gsaokfsu6enhngztpv7nn...@mail.gmail.com
> I've made another pass over the nodeAppend.c code and I'm unable to > see what might cause this, although I did discover a bug where > first_partial_plan is not set taking into account that some subplans > may have been pruned away during executor init. The only thing I think > this would cause is for parallel workers to not properly help out with > some partial plans if some earlier subplans were pruned. I can see no > reason for this to have caused this particular issue since the > first_partial_plan would be 0 with and without the attached fix. While looking at this patch I became curious as to why do we even have first_partial_plan in the first place; it seems to require some strange contortions in the code. Wouldn't it be simpler to have two lists, one for non-partial and another for partial paths? I went to check the original discussion, and this design was indeed considered [1] -- but the idea was discarded because using the list index would lead to simpler code. However, now that we have pruning it seems to me that using the index isn't simpler anymore. Should we revisit this now? [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZrjAB0bPzbtKgjP2uAP_6XAyuZenU54QuM7XGE_k2Q1g%40mail.gmail.com -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
