Fix another join removal bug: the check on PlaceHolderVars was wrong.
The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon finding
a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner rel and then used
above the join. However, this fails to cover the case of PlaceHolderVars
tha
Fix another join removal bug: the check on PlaceHolderVars was wrong.
The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon finding
a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner rel and then used
above the join. However, this fails to cover the case of PlaceHolderVars
tha
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:04:28PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fix another join removal bug: the check on PlaceHolderVars was
> wrong.
>
> The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon
> finding a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner
> rel and then used above t
David Fetter writes:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:04:28PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon
>> finding a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner
>> rel and then used above the join. However, this fails to cover the
>> case
On Sunday 26 September 2010 02:29:16 David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:04:28PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Fix another join removal bug: the check on PlaceHolderVars was
> > wrong.
> >
> > The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon
> > finding a PlaceHolderVar
