Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane <t...@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
