Etsuro Fujita writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
>>> for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
>>> const-simplification of the HAVING c
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
>> for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
>> const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wron
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
> for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
> const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wrong
> answer for a constant-true HAVING clause (which'll b
I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wrong
answer for a constant-true HAVING clause (which'll be folded to
empty). Correct code is to check root->hasHav
