1. 09 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  2. 08 3月, 2016 3 次提交
  3. 05 3月, 2016 1 次提交
    • H
      Handle constants correctly in cdbpullup_findPathKeyExprInTargetList · 81b5a62b
      Heikki Linnakangas 提交于
      If a PathKey contains a constant member, it can be evaluated without
      any entries in the target list, and can always be returned in
      cdbpullup_findPathKeyExprInTargetList. This fixes the "Unexpected intarnal
      error" you got with the included test query.
      
      Closes issue #348, reported by liruto. Thanks for the report!
      81b5a62b
  4. 04 3月, 2016 1 次提交
    • H
      Remove inaccurate assertion. · 04fe0202
      Heikki Linnakangas 提交于
      When DELETEing or UPDATEing an inherited table, some tables in the
      inheritance tree might need an explicit Motion node to bring the targeted
      tuples back to the segment where they reside, and some might not. The code
      to build the plan handled that correctly, but this assertion incorrecly
      assumed that it's all or nothing.
      
      Remove the assertion, as it doesn't seem very useful in the first place.
      The code that inserted the Motion nodes is just above the assertion, and
      the assertion was basically just testing the same thing that the code
      just did, and not some general invariant that should always hold.
      
      Fixes issue #332
      04fe0202
  5. 03 3月, 2016 2 次提交
  6. 02 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  7. 01 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  8. 29 2月, 2016 1 次提交
    • P
      Fix disorder issue when selecting from views with order-by clauses · 0be2e5b0
      Pengzhou Tang 提交于
      When applying motion, a merge other than normal gather motion should
      be added on the top node if it has sort list, this can make sure that
      tuples are still in order after gathered to QD. Only checking if top
      level parsetree has sort clauses may miss the implicit order constraint
      in a view
      0be2e5b0
  9. 26 2月, 2016 2 次提交
  10. 25 2月, 2016 1 次提交
  11. 24 2月, 2016 2 次提交
  12. 23 2月, 2016 2 次提交
  13. 19 2月, 2016 9 次提交
  14. 18 2月, 2016 6 次提交
  15. 17 2月, 2016 2 次提交
  16. 16 2月, 2016 1 次提交
  17. 13 2月, 2016 1 次提交
  18. 12 2月, 2016 1 次提交
    • N
      Fixing buffer overwrite in window operator · 071eb2c2
      Nikos Armenatzoglou 提交于
      We have a list of window values, one per level that the window functions of each level processes. We extract these window values from tuple store. To do the extraction, we use a temporary buffer, called serial_array, to serialize and deserialize the tuples. During this process, we obtain winvalues (the list of input values for a level). If the data type of the winvalues for a level is byref, then it ends up holding a pointer to the serial_array. However, we have only one serial_array for the entire window operator. Therefore, if we have more than one level with byref data types, we may end up overwriting the serial_array when we process another level, corrupting the earlier level’s byref datum pointers. To fix this, we now have one serial_array per level.
      Signed-off-by: NFoyzur Rahman <foyzur@gmail.com>
      071eb2c2
  19. 11 2月, 2016 1 次提交
  20. 10 2月, 2016 1 次提交
    • H
      Simplify InitPlan elimination test case, and make its output more stable. · 17ed5d4d
      Heikki Linnakangas 提交于
      The test query used system tables pg_class and gp_configuration, which is
      fine, except that the cost of scanning pg_class can vary widely, depending
      on previous regression tests and the amount of relations created in them.
      That made the output of the case a bit unstable; the planner might swap
      the inner and outer sides of the nestloop join between pg_class and
      gp_configuration, depending on the circumstances. That has been stable
      so far, but started to cause grief on another patch I'm working on, which
      changes the way ANALYZE works, because apparently it changed the statistics
      collected for pg_class sligthly.
      
      To fix, replace pg_class and gp_configuration in the test query with regular
      tables, created specifically for the test case. While we're at it, simplify
      the query a little bit, and also add a comment explaining what the purpose
      of the test is. There doesn't actually seem to be any need to do EXPLAIN
      here, the query produces wrong results if the bug is present, so get rid
      of that too.
      
      I tested this by reverting the changes that fixed the original bug this test
      query was added for, and verifying that the new query also produces wrong
      results with that.
      17ed5d4d