On 20 June 2018 at 14:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Not yet, but I have planned to do this by tomorrow. > 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. Yes I agree. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
