You signed in with another tab or window.Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window.Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window.Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Change more places to be less trusting of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down.
On further reflection, commite5d8399 didn't go far enough: pretty mucheverywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flagought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we alsocheck the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrectdecisions 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 arenever reached while considering a parameterized path, or because thereare additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway.However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way ratherthan rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort.In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that shouldbe 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