On 12.05.2025 14:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
But that's also assuming that you're correct here about how to descend
through a JoinExpr, which I'm not quite sure whether is true. It's
also assuming that we should solve the problem here rather than in
some other part of the code e.g.
Robert Haas writes:
> But that's also assuming that you're correct here about how to descend
> through a JoinExpr, which I'm not quite sure whether is true. It's
> also assuming that we should solve the problem here rather than in
> some other part of the code e.g. the join removal code, and I'm n
Hi, Robert!
On 09.05.2025 20:12, Robert Haas wrote:
If I understand correctly, the problem here is that join removal and
minmax aggregates don't work well together: after join removal runs,
we end up with a state that doesn't permit the minmax-aggregate code
to work.
Yes, it is correct.
I agre
Hi Alena,
If I understand correctly, the problem here is that join removal and
minmax aggregates don't work well together: after join removal runs,
we end up with a state that doesn't permit the minmax-aggregate code
to work.
I agree that would be good to fix but the patch doesn't seem right to m
