Thanks Ashutosh for the patch. I have apply and retested it, now not
getting server crash.

Thanks & Regards,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
QMG, EnterpriseDB Corporation

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <> wrote:

> Thanks Michael for looking into this.
>> In get_useful_ecs_for_relation, it seems to me that this assertion
>> should be removed and replaces by an actual check because even if
>> right_ec and left_ec are initialized, we cannot be sure that ec_relids
>> contains the relations specified:
>>         /*
>>          * restrictinfo->mergeopfamilies != NIL is sufficient to guarantee
>>          * that left_ec and right_ec will be initialized, per comments in
>>          * distribute_qual_to_rels, and rel->joininfo should only contain
>> ECs
>>          * where this relation appears on one side or the other.
>>          */
>>         if (bms_is_subset(relids, restrictinfo->right_ec->ec_relids))
>>             useful_eclass_list =
>> list_append_unique_ptr(useful_eclass_list,
>>  restrictinfo->right_ec);
>>         else
>>         {
>>             Assert(bms_is_subset(relids,
>> restrictinfo->left_ec->ec_relids));
>>             useful_eclass_list =
>> list_append_unique_ptr(useful_eclass_list,
>> restrictinfo->left_ec);
>>         }
> An EC covers all the relations covered by all the equivalence members it
> contains. In case of mergejoinable clause for outer join, EC may cover just
> a single relation whose column appears on either side of the clause. In
> this case, bms_is_subset() for a given join relation covering single
> relation in EC will be false. So, we have to use bms_overlap() instead of
> bms_is_subset(). The caller get_useful_pathkeys_for_rel() extracts the
> equivalence member (if any), which is entirely covered by the given
> relation. Otherwise, you are correct that we have to convert the assertion
> into a condition. I have added comments in get_useful_ecs_for_relation()
> explaining, why.
> See for example the attached (with more tests including combinations
>> of joins, and three-table joins). I have added an open item for 9.6 on
>> the wiki.
> Thanks for those tests. Actually, that code is relevant for joins which
> can not be pushed down to the foreign server. For such joins we try to add
> pathkeys which will help merge joins. I have included the relevant tests
> rewriting them to use local tables, so that the entire join is not pushed
> down to the foreign server.
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Ashutosh Bapat
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> The Postgres Database Company

Reply via email to