Richard Guo writes:
> The "incompatible_relids" idea is a stroke of genius. I reviewed the
> patch and did not find any problem. So big +1 to the patch.
Pushed, thanks for the report and the review.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I tried this and it seems to work all right: it fixes the example
> you showed while not causing any new failures. (Doesn't address
> the broken join-removal logic you showed in the other thread,
> though.)
>
> While at it, I also changed make_re
I wrote:
> ... Another idea is that maybe we need another
> RestrictInfo field that's directly a set of OJ relids that this clause
> can't be applied above. That'd reduce clause_is_computable_at to
> basically a bms_intersect test which would be nice speed-wise. The
> space consumption could be a
Richard Guo writes:
> So the qual 't2.a = t5.a' is missing.
Ugh.
> I looked into it and found that both clones of this joinqual are
> rejected by clause_is_computable_at, because their required_relids do
> not include the outer join of t2/(t3/t4), and meanwhile include nullable
> rels of this ou
