From: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Clause accidentally pushed down ( Possible bug in Making Vars outer-join aware)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:23:02 +0500
Message-ID: <2663884e-769a-b298-55b0-014c5a1ee55c@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <402433.1677524538@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <0b819232-4b50-f245-1c7d-c8c61bf41827@postgrespro.ru>
<CAMbWs4_HJNuLv9HDReEBDrQrCPV-uqpVOecoJkurprnY+Do9Fg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs4_8EZU4DetHyZGm1CwCxUhBdWpRnA9dtM-Z82i=bVKA6A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs4_XcPHqc=A=36cxvJRhkjAgEeJtOFLOnBPEfQYGqnGOCw@mail.gmail.com>
<efb33bee-145d-95a8-1048-2e7b8f282e2c@postgrespro.ru>
<CAMbWs48FHw_tTXSbA-_MPaeu7S7JCt6Xs-gxwkx=pvLiwC6eTg@mail.gmail.com>
<c69bd07e-1175-10da-9ac0-4bfe59235ac2@postgrespro.ru>
<402433.1677524538@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 28/2/2023 00:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On 27/2/2023 13:16, Richard Guo wrote:
>>> Do you mean function check_outerjoin_delay()? Yes it has been removed
>>> in b448f1c8, since now we consider that outer joins listed in
>>> varnullingrels or phnullingrels are used in the clause, so that the
>>> clause would not be placed below outer joins that should null some of
>>> its vars.
>> I see. But these logics looks non-equivalent.
> Admittedly the new stuff is having more teething pains than I'd hoped
> for, but we'll work through it. Most of the bugs are stemming from
> the fact that we now need a rigorous representation of what is
> happening when we commute outer joins per identity 3, and we're
> finding out that we are not quite there yet.
Ok, maybe my language still not so fluent, as I think sometimes. In
accordance to the example above:
1. varnullingrels contains relids of entries which can null the var. In
our case it (correctly) contains t3 and OJ(t3,t4)
2. Syntactic scope of the clause correctly contains all relations and OJs
3. In the distribute_qual_to_rels I don't see a code which should
disallow pushing down a clause from higher syntactic level into nullable
side of OJ. Where is the logic which should limit the lowest level of
the clause push down?
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, guofenglinux@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Clause accidentally pushed down ( Possible bug in Making Vars outer-join aware)
In-Reply-To: <2663884e-769a-b298-55b0-014c5a1ee55c@postgrespro.ru>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox