Re: havingQual vs hasHavingQual buglets

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
>> for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
>> const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wrong
>> answer for a constant-true HAVING clause (which'll be folded to
>> empty). Correct code is to check root->hasHavingQual instead.

The postgres_fdw bits would be my oversight. :-(

> +1. root->hasHavingQual is set before we do any expression
> preprocessing. It should be the right one to check with.

+1 HEAD only seems reasonable.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita