From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert !bms_overlap(joinrel->relids, required_outer) |
Date: | 2023-06-29 06:44:43 |
Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_0E=CJOA7_pnq8dbnOcVpVsHfzhFy7w1VBsP6620KD_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:39 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> However, given that what we need is to exclude parameterization
>> that depends on the currently-formed OJ, it seems to me we can do
>> it more simply and without any new JoinPathExtraData field,
>> as attached. What do you think?
>
>
> I think it makes sense. At first I wondered if we should also exclude
> parameterization that depends on OJs that have already been formed as
> part of this joinrel. But it seems not possible that the input paths
> have parameterization dependency on these OJs. So it should be
> sufficient to only consider the currently-formed OJ.
>
BTW, it seems that extra->sjinfo would always have a valid value here.
So maybe we do not need to check if it is not NULL explicitly?
Thanks
Richard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2023-06-29 06:54:44 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
Previous Message | Alena Rybakina | 2023-06-29 06:10:42 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |