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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |