• Tom Lane's avatar
    Fix some more problems with nested append relations. · 5a6c168c
    Tom Lane authored
    As of commit a87c7291 (which later got backpatched as far as 9.1),
    we're explicitly supporting the notion that append relations can be
    nested; this can occur when UNION ALL constructs are nested, or when
    a UNION ALL contains a table with inheritance children.
    
    Bug #11457 from Nelson Page, as well as an earlier report from Elvis
    Pranskevichus, showed that there were still nasty bugs associated with such
    cases: in particular the EquivalenceClass mechanism could try to generate
    "join" clauses connecting an appendrel child to some grandparent appendrel,
    which would result in assertion failures or bogus plans.
    
    Upon investigation I concluded that all current callers of
    find_childrel_appendrelinfo() need to be fixed to explicitly consider
    multiple levels of parent appendrels.  The most complex fix was in
    processing of "broken" EquivalenceClasses, which are ECs for which we have
    been unable to generate all the derived equality clauses we would like to
    because of missing cross-type equality operators in the underlying btree
    operator family.  That code path is more or less entirely untested by
    the regression tests to date, because no standard opfamilies have such
    holes in them.  So I wrote a new regression test script to try to exercise
    it a bit, which turned out to be quite a worthwhile activity as it exposed
    existing bugs in all supported branches.
    
    The present patch is essentially the same as far back as 9.2, which is
    where parameterized paths were introduced.  In 9.0 and 9.1, we only need
    to back-patch a small fragment of commit 5b7b5518, which fixes failure to
    propagate out the original WHERE clauses when a broken EC contains constant
    members.  (The regression test case results show that these older branches
    are noticeably stupider than 9.2+ in terms of the quality of the plans
    generated; but we don't really care about plan quality in such cases,
    only that the plan not be outright wrong.  A more invasive fix in the
    older branches would not be a good idea anyway from a plan-stability
    standpoint.)
    5a6c168c
serial_schedule 2.3 KB