From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent nullingrels due to oversight in deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals
In-reply-to: <CAMbWs497CmBruMx1SOjepWEz+T5NWa4scqbdE9v7ZzSXqH_gQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMbWs497CmBruMx1SOjepWEz+T5NWa4scqbdE9v7ZzSXqH_gQw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:16:15 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3907972.1675958156.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:55:56 -0500
Message-ID: <3907973.1675958156@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3907973.1675958156%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems to me there is oversight here.  Actually in next level up this
> othersj would null all the relids in its syn_righthand, not only the
> relids in its min_righthand.

Good point.  I think this code originated before it was clear to me
that nullingrels would need to follow the syntactic structure.

> This query would trigger the Assert() in search_indexed_tlist_for_var.
> So I wonder that we should use othersj->syn_righthand here.

There are two such calls in deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals ...
don't they both need this change?

			regards, tom lane