| From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2026-04-23 08:26:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAHewXN=Oz1ACoGsUcSE5B2udK3bmfqHv4CsPKdvr4AbBRRMeCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2026年4月22日周三 23:10写道：
>
> I have another approach about to deduplication of RestrictInfo's. The
> field, which differs in this case, is outer_relids. AFAICS,
> outer_relids and incompatible_relids serves as the restriction on what
> we can do with RestrictInfo. So, what we can do is to ignore both
> outer_relids and incompatible_relids during comparison, but compose a
> union of their values for remaining RestrictInfo. That means that
> remaining RestrictInfo will ancest all the restrictions, and that
> should be safe.
>
> What do you think?
It seems workable and safer than the previous solution.
--
Thanks,
Tender Wang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2026-04-23 09:58:30 | Re: Potential buffer overrun in spell.c's CheckAffix() |
| Previous Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-04-23 08:26:01 | Re: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently accept month=0 and day=0 |