| From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, ammmkilo(at)163(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19435: Error: "No relation entry for relid 2" Triggered by Complex Join with Self-Referencing Tables |
| Date: | 2026-03-22 05:15:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAHewXN=Kn-+-3KA=DLoGQyBkgf6JVwLa8cvgLs8yBvdaX7gYFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi Tom,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 于2026年3月21日周六 04:26写道:
>
> I wrote:
> > At the very least we need to add comments, but I wonder if we
> > don't actually need an Assert that ChangeVarNodesWalkExpression
> > is not invoked directly on a Query. It would have done the
> > right thing before this patch, but now it won't. That's an
> > okay tradeoff for fixing the bare-Var case, but not documenting
> > what you did is not okay.
>
> After further contemplation I've decided that an Assert would be
> wrong, because it's not impossible that a callback would want
> to invoke this on a sub-Query --- for instance, if it wanted to
> short-circuit ChangeVarNodes's processing of a SubLink node,
> it would need to do that. The key point is that if we do see a
> Query node here, we will treat it as a sub-query not a top-level
> query, which also justifies skipping the work that
> ChangeVarNodesExtended does on a top-level Query. So we just
> need a comment explaining that. I'm thinking about the attached.
>
> (BTW, by this reasoning the previous implementation of
> ChangeVarNodesWalkExpression was doubly wrong, since it would
> have done the wrong thing at a Query node as well as a Var node.)
Thanks for pointing this out. The attached looks good to me.
Do you have some advice about that the same qual is present
twice in the plan, see [1].
Should we do something in restrict_infos_logically_equal().
Please take a look.
--
Thanks,
Tender Wang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2026-03-23 16:47:06 | Re: BUG #19434: adding WHERE to a publication can cause UPDATEs and DELETEs to fail on the source table |
| Previous Message | cca5507 | 2026-03-21 06:19:56 | Re: Two issues with REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY |