Re: BUG #17700: An assert failed in prepjointree.c
От | Richard Guo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17700: An assert failed in prepjointree.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMbWs488fY3pzOoBwDNJijrhAtmkmbETaVQHmKaRS3HG6jbzLg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17700: An assert failed in prepjointree.c (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17700: An assert failed in prepjointree.c
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> BTW, for the test case
> +explain (verbose, costs off)
> +with ctetable as not materialized ( select 1 as f1 )
> +select * from ctetable c1
> +where f1 in ( select c3.f1 from ctetable c2 full join ctetable c3 on true
> );
> Actually we just need to keep 'c3' in a join's nullable side to have the
> PHV created. So we don't have to use full join in the subquery. A left
> join would do.
Actually, the planner reduces the full join to left join anyway;
if it did not, it wouldn't be able to reach the code in question.
I think this formulation is fine because it tests that step along
with the bug proper.
Hmm, I see your point. You're right. 'c2 fulljoin c3' would be reduced
to 'c3 leftjoin c2'.
BTW, I wonder if we need the JOIN_RIGHT case here since JOIN_RIGHT
should have been flipped around to become JOIN_LEFT.
Thanks
Richard
to 'c3 leftjoin c2'.
BTW, I wonder if we need the JOIN_RIGHT case here since JOIN_RIGHT
should have been flipped around to become JOIN_LEFT.
Thanks
Richard
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: