Message-ID: <fc183714-a61c-4de7-97e0-b1c376923aef@postgrespro.ru>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:47:32 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: BUG #18170: Unexpected error: no relation entry for relid 3
Content-Language: en-US
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
 Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch,
 pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
 Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov@postgresql.org>
References: <18170-f1d17bf9a0d58b24@postgresql.org>
 <4ecab120-6be3-4cf6-a2a0-249c73ae91d4@postgresfriends.org>
 <1189851.1698340331@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <011bcae5-7840-42c7-a50c-b406189e2e78@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAPpHfdsiN0norSHfw3Ujemf=RuPzMxt5PRDiyv0vqUdwSBDtoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <721542ce-79df-469e-93e9-811fadb5bd0c@postgrespro.ru>
 <2eb87c2e-7e6f-4002-8df3-8fac3aa6a037@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAMbWs494m3AjhHry_HFCFi_SJ+6-PaeMRbx7jK39ZHmK0MVOUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c0a5b39d-8a80-47fb-bd34-6d769f88df8f@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAPpHfduPMdLm42uwuXqM1weUKSYp=2Kf-_XU2TjZsizeZ3qoWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdv_6K_sv5sL_=9EiP7Lve81WLSdiLrc22afpmg_whyxtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2141583.1698595016@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMbWs489RP3CFKwtWoG2m=qD5byfS_9_13yVU5wyknDTb3GToQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMbWs489RP3CFKwtWoG2m=qD5byfS_9_13yVU5wyknDTb3GToQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fc183714-a61c-4de7-97e0-b1c376923aef%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On 30/10/2023 09:24, Richard Guo wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 11:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
> 
>     Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com
>     <mailto:aekorotkov@gmail.com>> writes:
>      > I made some beautification of the patch by Andrei.  I also
>     removed the
>      > part which changes the target list for estimate_num_groups().  Any
>      > objections to pushing this?
> 
>     It seems moderately likely that this will break as much as it fixes.
> 
>     I've not studied the original patch enough to understand why you need
>     to be playing strange games with tree mutation rules, but I suspect
>     that this is band-aiding over some rather fundamentally bad code.
> 
> 
> I also have some concerns about this patch.  It requires that
> root->parse remains unchanged during the whole subquery_planner() in
> order to work, which is an implicit constraint we did not have before.

It is not about unchanged; it is about referencing the same query at the 
parent and child query blocks. Am I missing something?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional