I wrote:
> I can't reproduce it with less than four tables, so it's a pretty
> weird corner case. Apparently there's something wrong with
> distribute_qual_to_rels' logic for determining qual placement, but
> I'm not sure what yet ...
OK, I've localized the problem and been able to reduce it to a
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8.1 this returns 1 record. On 8.2 this returns 10. It appears to
> be applying the filter too soon, and then it does an outer join which
> violates the WHERE.
AFAICS the outer join reordering is perfectly legal --- the problem is
that the WHERE condi
Thanks to rcohen on IRC yesterday for pointing this out and providing
his query + EXPLAIN output.
It looks like he still hasn't posted it to -bugs, and I was finally able
to reproduce it in a narrower, self contained test case, so I'm posting
this right now.
On 8.1 this returns 1 record. On 8.2
