The previous code neglected the fact that the scanjoin_target might
carry sortgroupref labelings that we need to absorb. Instead, do
create_projection_path() unconditionally, and tweak the path's cost
estimate after the fact. (I'm now convinced that we ought to refactor
the way we account for sometimes not needing a separate projection step,
but right now is not the time for that sort of cleanup.)
Problem identified by Amit Kapila, patch by me.
Commit 04ae11f62e removed some broken
code to apply the scan/join target to partial paths, but its theory
that this processing step is totally unnecessary turns out to be wrong.
Put similar code back again, but this time, check for parallel-safety
and avoid in-place modifications to paths that may already have been
used as part of some other path.
(This is not an entirely elegant solution to this problem; it might
be better, for example, to postpone generate_gather_paths for the
topmost scan/join rel until after the scan/join target has been
applied. But this is not the time for such redesign work.)
Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
In commit 8c1d9d56e9, I attempted to
add a regression test that would fail if the target list was pushed
into a parallel worker, but due to brain fade on my part, it just
randomly fails whether anything bad or not, because the error check
inside the parallel_restricted() function tests whether there is
*any process in the system* that is not connected to a client, not
whether the process running the query is not connected to a client.
A little experimentation has left me pessimistic about the
prospects of doing better here in a short amount of time, so let's
just fall back to checking that the plan is as we expect and leave
the execution-time check for another day.
Commit 14a254fb52 managed not to
exercise the code it was intended to test, and the comment explaining
why no "parallel worker" line showed up in the context wasn't right.
Amit Kapila, tweaked by me per Amit's analysis.
Tom Lane
Robert Haas
Noah Misch