Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oVFlP-0004aO-1L for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2022 17:19:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oVFlN-0001aa-Lt for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2022 17:19:57 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oVFlN-0001aR-Dh for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2022 17:19:57 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oVFlL-0006Um-85 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2022 17:19:56 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 285HJrXm2452777; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:19:54 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kcmUgTGlu?=" <857348270@qq.com> cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?cGdzcWwtYnVncw==?=" , "=?ISO-8859-1?B?Z3VvZmVuZ2xpbnV4?=" Subject: Re: BUG #17606: There is still some glitch in 3f7323cbb fixing failure of MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK In-reply-to: References: <17606-e5c8ad18d31db96a@postgresql.org> <2435363.1662393106@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2439275.1662394684@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kcmUgTGlu?=" <857348270@qq.com> message dated "Tue, 06 Sep 2022 00:50:19 +0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2452775.1662398393.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 13:19:53 -0400 Message-ID: <2452776.1662398393@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kcmUgTGlu?=" <857348270@qq.com> writes: > > After contemplating that for awhile, by far the least painful way > > seems to be to add the subLinkId to struct SubPlan.  We can get > > away with that in the back branches as long as we add it at the > > end, since SubPlans don't get recorded in the catalogs. > But let's assume that we manage to verify initplan/subplan by adding > subLinkId to SubPlan, we still have problem. In short, the exact > subqueryid of the new MULTIEXPR Param will be pain in the ass... Well, yeah, that data structure would need to change. regards, tom lane