sorting a union over inheritance vs pathkeys
I’ve come across an issue when creating a union over tables which includes inheritance:
CREATE TABLE events (event_id INT NOT NULL);
-- CREATE TABLE
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX events_event_id_key ON events (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
CREATE TABLE legacy_events (event_id INT NOT NULL);
-- CREATE TABLE
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX legacy_events_event_id_key ON legacy_events (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
CREATE TABLE events_2 () INHERITS (events);
-- CREATE TABLE
-- this index isn't necessary to reproduce the error
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX events_2_event_id_key ON events_2 (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
SELECT event_id
FROM (SELECT event_id
FROM events
UNION ALL
SELECT event_id
FROM legacy_events) _
ORDER BY event_id;
-- ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
It’ll work if the indexes are removed. Using PRIMARY KEY in lieu of NOT NULL and UNIQUE indexes still exhibits the issue.
I’ve seen this in 9.2.8 and 9.3.4. I haven’t tested this in 9.4 or earlier than 9.2.
Any thoughts?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> writes:
Ive come across an issue when creating a union over tables which includes inheritance:
CREATE TABLE events (event_id INT NOT NULL);
-- CREATE TABLE
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX events_event_id_key ON events (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
CREATE TABLE legacy_events (event_id INT NOT NULL);
-- CREATE TABLE
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX legacy_events_event_id_key ON legacy_events (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
CREATE TABLE events_2 () INHERITS (events);
-- CREATE TABLE
-- this index isn't necessary to reproduce the error
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX events_2_event_id_key ON events_2 (event_id);
-- CREATE INDEX
SELECT event_id
FROM (SELECT event_id
FROM events
UNION ALL
SELECT event_id
FROM legacy_events) _
ORDER BY event_id;
-- ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
Hm ... I can reproduce that in 9.3 but it seems fine in 9.4 and HEAD.
Don't know what's going on exactly.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> writes:
-- ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
Hm ... I can reproduce that in 9.3 but it seems fine in 9.4 and HEAD.
Don't know what's going on exactly.
Interesting --- it appears that commit
a87c729153e372f3731689a7be007bc2b53f1410 is why it works in 9.4. I had
thought that was just improving plan quality, but it seems to also prevent
this problem. I guess we'd better back-patch it.
I find that 9.1 through 9.3 fail with this example; it may be that it was
the addition of MergeAppend support that exposed the issue.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Jun 25, 2014, at 22:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> writes:
-- ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
Hm ... I can reproduce that in 9.3 but it seems fine in 9.4 and HEAD.
Don't know what's going on exactly.Interesting --- it appears that commit
a87c729153e372f3731689a7be007bc2b53f1410 is why it works in 9.4. I had
thought that was just improving plan quality, but it seems to also prevent
this problem. I guess we'd better back-patch it.
Thanks, Tom!
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers