Change more places to be less trusting of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down.
On further reflection, commit e5d83995 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
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment