On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 2:30 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:32 AM Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion. Attached is an updated patch which is added > > with a commit message that tries to explain the problem and the fix. > > This is great. The references to "the sampling infos" are a little bit > confusing to me. I'm not sure if this is referring to > TableSampleClause objects or what. Yeah, it's referring to TableSampleClause objects. I've updated the commit message to clarify that. In passing I also updated the test cases a bit. Please see v10-0001-Postpone-reparameterization-of-paths-until-when-creating-plans.patch > > Fair point. I think we can back-patch a more minimal fix, as Tom > > proposed in [1], which disallows the reparameterization if the path > > contains sampling info that references the outer rel. But I think we > > need also to disallow the reparameterization of a path if it contains > > restriction clauses that reference the outer rel, as such paths have > > been found to cause incorrect results, or planning errors as in [2]. > > Do you want to produce a patch for that, to go along with this patch for > master? Sure, here it is: v10-0001-Avoid-reparameterizing-Paths-when-it-s-not-suitable.patch Thanks Richard
v10-0001-Postpone-reparameterization-of-paths-until-when-creating-plans.patch
Description: Binary data
v10-0001-Avoid-reparameterizing-Paths-when-it-s-not-suitable.patch
Description: Binary data
