Hi,
On 11/27/25 7:01 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 07:26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So I'm inclined to apply the attached and just call it good.
> I think the patch looks fine.
+1, verified, thanks a lot!
>
>> Should we back-patch? I'm unsure. Clearly it's a bug that we
>> cannot generate an indexscan plan in this case, but we've learned
>> that changing plans in released branches is often not wanted.
>> And given the lack of field complaints, nobody is using the case
>> anyway.
> I feel like anyone adding a partial hash index has done so quite
> purposefully. I suspect they might be surprised if there's no means
> whatsoever to use that index in scans, so perhaps it's ok to
> backpatch.
>
> Sergei, can you confirm if this was something he noticed when playing
> around on master, or if this came from a field report?
It was reported for v16.
Regards,
Sergei Glukhov
