| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oversight in reparameterize_path_by_child leading to executor crash |
| Date: | 2023-08-23 17:44:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3381764.1692812651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If we go with the "tablesample scans can't be reparameterized" approach
> in the back branches, I'm a little concerned that what if we find more
> cases in the futrue where we need modify RTEs for reparameterization.
> So I spent some time seeking and have managed to find one: there might
> be lateral references in a scan path's restriction clauses, and
> currently reparameterize_path_by_child fails to adjust them.
Hmm, this seems completely wrong to me. By definition, such clauses
ought to be join clauses not restriction clauses, so how are we getting
into this state? IOW, I agree this is clearly buggy but I think the
bug is someplace else.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-08-23 17:55:26 | Re: PostgreSQL 16 release announcement draft |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-08-23 17:08:18 | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints |