diff options
| author | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2018-04-20 15:19:16 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2018-04-20 15:19:16 -0400 |
| commit | c792c7db41466ff02107e3233ec9d92d8e3df866 (patch) | |
| tree | 97bd3be2c6188992f14958c3a5d0dad402f49f98 /src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c | |
| parent | 68c23cba341a0083afa8e30f0c43bf18cbd01bb7 (diff) | |
| download | postgresql-c792c7db41466ff02107e3233ec9d92d8e3df866.tar.gz postgresql-c792c7db41466ff02107e3233ec9d92d8e3df866.zip | |
Change more places to be less trusting of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down.
On further reflection, commit e5d83995e didn't go far enough: pretty much
everywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flag
ought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we also
check the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrect
decisions about whether, say, a clause is safe to use as a hash clause.
Some (many?) of these places are safe as-is, either because they are
never reached while considering a parameterized path, or because there
are additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway.
However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way rather
than rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort.
In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that should
be used in place of direct tests on the is_pushed_down flag.
Like the previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c | 10 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c b/src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c index ef25fefa455..c5c43626096 100644 --- a/src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c @@ -253,8 +253,7 @@ join_is_removable(PlannerInfo *root, SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo) * above the outer join, even if it references no other rels (it might * be from WHERE, for example). */ - if (restrictinfo->is_pushed_down || - !bms_equal(restrictinfo->required_relids, joinrelids)) + if (RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(restrictinfo, joinrelids)) { /* * If such a clause actually references the inner rel then join @@ -422,8 +421,7 @@ remove_rel_from_query(PlannerInfo *root, int relid, Relids joinrelids) remove_join_clause_from_rels(root, rinfo, rinfo->required_relids); - if (rinfo->is_pushed_down || - !bms_equal(rinfo->required_relids, joinrelids)) + if (RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(rinfo, joinrelids)) { /* Recheck that qual doesn't actually reference the target rel */ Assert(!bms_is_member(relid, rinfo->clause_relids)); @@ -1080,6 +1078,7 @@ is_innerrel_unique_for(PlannerInfo *root, JoinType jointype, List *restrictlist) { + Relids joinrelids = bms_union(outerrelids, innerrel->relids); List *clause_list = NIL; ListCell *lc; @@ -1098,7 +1097,8 @@ is_innerrel_unique_for(PlannerInfo *root, * As noted above, if it's a pushed-down clause and we're at an outer * join, we can't use it. */ - if (restrictinfo->is_pushed_down && IS_OUTER_JOIN(jointype)) + if (IS_OUTER_JOIN(jointype) && + RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(restrictinfo, joinrelids)) continue; /* Ignore if it's not a mergejoinable clause */ |