On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 12:21 AM Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> wrote: > The fix makes sense to me. Do we also need to change the comment above > find_dependent_phvs()? It still says find_dependent_phvs_in_jointree() > is for checking a subtree of the join tree. (With the patch it also > walks the whole query for nested PHVs..)
Thanks for looking! Good catch on the comment. I've updated it, and then pushed and back-patched this fix. - Richard
