| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | havingQual vs hasHavingQual buglets |
| Date: | 2022-10-17 21:37:23 |
| Message-ID: | 2503888.1666042643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wrong
answer for a constant-true HAVING clause (which'll be folded to
empty). Correct code is to check root->hasHavingQual instead.
These mistakes only affect cost estimates, and they're sufficiently
corner cases that it'd be hard even to devise a reliable test case
showing a different plan choice. So I'm not very excited about this,
and am thinking of committing only to HEAD.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-hasHavingQual-oversights.patch | text/x-diff | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erwin Brandstetter | 2022-10-17 22:10:12 | Re: Allow WindowFuncs prosupport function to use more optimal WindowClause options |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-10-17 21:14:21 | Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits |