On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> Check out ExecReScanGather(): it shuts down and waits for all workers
>>> to complete, which makes the assumptions in ExecReScanHashJoin() true.
>>> If a node below Gather but above Hash Join could initiate a rescan
>>> then the assumptions would not hold. I am not sure what it would mean
>>> though and we don't generate any such plans today to my knowledge. It
>>> doesn't seem to make sense for the inner side of Nested Loop to be
>>> partial. Have I missed something here?
>>
>> I bet this could happen, although recent commits have demonstrated
>> that my knowledge of how PostgreSQL handles rescans is less than
>> compendious. Suppose there's a Nested Loop below the Gather and above
>> the Hash Join, implementing a join condition that can't give rise to a
>> parameterized path, like a.x + b.x = 0.
>
> Hmm. I still don't see how that could produce a rescan of a partial
> path without an intervening Gather, and I would really like to get to
> the bottom of this.
I'm thinking about something like this:
Gather
-> Nested Loop
-> Parallel Seq Scan
-> Hash Join
-> Seq Scan
-> Parallel Hash
-> Parallel Seq Scan
The hash join has to be rescanned for every iteration of the nested loop.
Maybe I'm confused.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
