Tom Lane writes:
>> On 08/01/2015 05:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, I certainly think all of these represent bugs:
>>>> 1 | ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
>
> Hmm ... I see no error with these queries as of today's HEAD or
> back-branch tips. I surmise that this was triggered by one of the other
> recently-fixed bugs, though the connection isn't obvious offhand.
I still see this error in master as of b8cbe43, but the queries are
indeed a pita to reproduce. The one below is the only one so far that
is robust against running ANALYZE on the regression db, and also
reproduces when I run it as an EXTRA_TEST with make check.
regards,
Andreas
select
rel_217088662.a as c0,
rel_217088554.a as c1,
rel_217088662.b as c2,
subq_34235266.c0 as c3,
rel_217088660.id2 as c4,
rel_217088660.id2 as c5
from
public.clstr_tst as rel_217088554
inner join (select
rel_217088628.a as c0
from
public.rtest_vview3 as rel_217088628
where (rel_217088628.b !~ rel_217088628.b)
and ((((rel_217088628.b ~~* rel_217088628.b)
or (rel_217088628.b ~* rel_217088628.b))
or (rel_217088628.b <> rel_217088628.b))
or (rel_217088628.b = rel_217088628.b))) as subq_34235266
inner join public.num_exp_mul as rel_217088660
inner join public.onek2 as rel_217088661
on (rel_217088660.id1 = rel_217088661.unique1 )
on (subq_34235266.c0 = rel_217088660.id1 )
inner join public.main_table as rel_217088662
on (rel_217088661.unique2 = rel_217088662.a )
on (rel_217088554.b = rel_217088660.id1 )
where rel_217088554.d = rel_217088554.c
fetch first 94 rows only;
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
