On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 12:21 AM Ayush Tiwari
<ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The fix makes sense to me. Do we also need to change the comment above
> find_dependent_phvs()? It still says find_dependent_phvs_in_jointree()
> is for checking a subtree of the join tree. (With the patch it also
> walks the whole query for nested PHVs..)
Thanks for looking! Good catch on the comment. I've updated it, and
then pushed and back-patched this fix.
- Richard