On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 13:25, Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please look at a warning and an assertion failure triggered by the
>> following script:
>> set parallel_setup_cost = 0;
>> set parallel_tuple_cost = 0;
>> set min_parallel_table_scan_size = '1kB';
>>
>> create table t1 (i int) partition by range (i);
>> create table t1_1 partition of t1 for values from (1) to (2);
>> create table t1_2 partition of t1 for values from (2) to (3);
>> insert into t1 values (1), (2);
>>
>> create table t2(i int);
>> insert into t2 values (1), (2);
>> analyze t1, t2;
>>
>> select * from t1 right join t2 on t1.i = t2.i;
>>
>> 2023-11-06 14:11:37.398 UTC|law|regression|6548f419.392cf5|WARNING: Join
>> partition pruning $0 has not been performed yet.
>> TRAP: failed Assert("node->as_prune_state"), File: "nodeAppend.c", Line:
>> 846, PID: 3747061
>
>
> Thanks for the report! I failed to take care of the parallel-hashjoin
> case, and I have to admit that it's not clear to me yet how we should do
> join partition pruning in that case.
>
> For now I think it's better to just avoid performing join partition
> pruning for parallel hashjoin, so that the patch doesn't become too
> complex for review. We can always extend it in the future.
>
> I have done that in v5. Thanks for testing!
CFBot shows that the patch does not apply anymore as in [1]:
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
924d046dcf55887c98a1628675a30f4b0eebe556 ===
=== applying patch
./v5-0001-Support-run-time-partition-pruning-for-hash-join.patch
...
patching file src/include/nodes/plannodes.h
...
patching file src/include/optimizer/cost.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 211.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/include/optimizer/cost.h.rej
Please post an updated version for the same.
[1] - http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_46_4512.log
Regards,
Vignesh
