On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@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? 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. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
