public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Richard Guo <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BUG #19460: FULL JOIN rewriting issue on empty queries
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:51:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMbWs4_nNfYktwQu4vNbienz+6oKXeE1Vzq9K_qH9F19MaJoMQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAMbWs48E2qqd4B6AdvJDyPBi685-_bDEvoe0aJnYzAPL1v30zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAMbWs49PPxhrqBjHj3Wy4hK4=_DoHkJdAHL_q1mqpyyCk5MdMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:32 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Guo <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:26 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Thanks for looking at it!  There is a loose end still bothering me:
> >> if you remove the lower "WHERE t.id = ..." clause, or change it to be
> >> something other than an equality constraint on t.id, the bug doesn't
> >> manifest.  The reason for that is un-obvious.

> > The reason seems to be that the equality constraint is a restriction
> > clause for the inner relation 't', and is needed to determine that the
> > relation has a matching unique index and is therefore distinct.  If we
> > remove it, or change it to something that isn't mergejoinable, we
> > won't be able to prove the inner side of the left join is distinct,
> > and thus won't be able to remove that left join.

> Hmm.  The bug also goes away if "t" doesn't have a unique/pkey
> constraint, and I find that easy to understand: we can't apply outer
> join removal unless rel_supports_distinctness/rel_is_distinct_for
> succeed, so that this buggy code in remove_rel_from_restrictinfo
> is not reached.  But that logic doesn't consider WHERE constraints
> AFAICS.  So I think there is some other code path involved.

Hmm, relation_has_unique_index_for does consider the lower "WHERE t.id
= ..." clause, as that clause is a restriction clause for "t", and
relation_has_unique_index_for automatically adds any usable
restriction clauses for the rel.

- Richard

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: BUG #19460: FULL JOIN rewriting issue on empty queries
  In-Reply-To: <CAMbWs4_nNfYktwQu4vNbienz+6oKXeE1Vzq9K_qH9F19MaJoMQ@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox