From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels |
Date: | 2023-05-18 06:47:42 |
Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_MnWQFS6T6mZXyFumBQ=X6yc3debpWJAP0nZw2kT+zaA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 3:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ... BTW, something I'd considered in an earlier attempt at fixing this
> was to change clause_is_computable_at's API to pass the clause's
> RestrictInfo not just the clause_relids, along the lines of
>
> @@ -541,9 +547,10 @@ extract_actual_join_clauses(List *restrictinfo_list,
> */
> bool
> clause_is_computable_at(PlannerInfo *root,
> - Relids clause_relids,
> + RestrictInfo *rinfo,
> Relids eval_relids)
> {
> + Relids clause_relids = rinfo->clause_relids;
> ListCell *lc;
>
> /* Nothing to do if no outer joins have been performed yet. */
>
> with corresponding simplifications at the call sites. That was with
> a view to examining has_clone/is_clone inside this function. My
> current proposal doesn't require that, but I'm somewhat tempted
> to make this API change anyway for future-proofing purposes.
> Thoughts?
This change looks good to me.
Thanks
Richard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-05-18 07:51:13 | Re: Should CSV parsing be stricter about mid-field quotes? |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-05-18 06:37:43 | Re: Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels |