From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: havingQual vs hasHavingQual buglets
In-reply-to: 
 <CAPmGK14uQdQbsv1LSQ5GdxyqNddhceseEjd7-zojXOBQdSmkWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2503888.1666042643@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMbWs483p-h5caneOz+dfqOpH3W17MZQgCsrc6WcXyt-4vmvuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK14uQdQbsv1LSQ5GdxyqNddhceseEjd7-zojXOBQdSmkWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:23:49 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2647066.1666104406.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:46:46 -0400
Message-ID: <2647067.1666104406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2647067.1666104406%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.  :-(

No worries --- I think the one in set_subquery_pathlist is probably
my fault :-(

> +1  HEAD only seems reasonable.

Pushed that way; thanks for looking.

			regards, tom lane