Hi,
On 11/27/25 7:01 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 07:26, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
So I'm inclined to apply the attached and just call it good.
I think the patch looks fine.
+1, verified, thanks a lot!
Should we back-patch? I'm unsure. Clearly it's a bug that we
cannot generate an indexscan plan in this case, but we've learned
that changing plans in released branches is often not wanted.
And given the lack of field complaints, nobody is using the case
anyway.
I feel like anyone adding a partial hash index has done so quite
purposefully. I suspect they might be surprised if there's no means
whatsoever to use that index in scans, so perhaps it's ok to
backpatch.
Sergei, can you confirm if this was something he noticed when playing
around on master, or if this came from a field report?
It was reported for v16.
Regards,
Sergei Glukhov
