Re: A gap in preventing bogus parameterizations in a798660ebe3

On 11/9/26 12:33, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 11/9/26 09:10, Richard Guo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2026 at 4:47 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
>>> I'm now fairly confident the fix is correct. I'd still welcome someone
>>> else doing a quick review, of course.
>>
>> I looked at the master patch, and it LGTM.
>>
>> One nit on the commit message: "we still reject the path, just a bit
>> later" isn't quite accurate. AFAICS nothing rejects such a path
>> later. It'd be added to the joinrel's pathlist, just that it can
>> never be used, because its parameterization includes a relid within
>> the joinrel, which the other input of an upper join can never supply.
>> Maybe something like "In non-assert builds this is mostly harmless,
>> since such paths can never appear in a complete plan."
>>
>
> Right. That's what I mean by "rejected" by I agree it's a bit unclear.
Pushed, after rewording the commit message a little bit to make it clear
we were not rejecting the paths, but a final plan would not have used
them because of the bogus parameterization.

Thanks for the review!

--
Tomas Vondra