On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 be folded to >> empty). Correct code is to check root->hasHavingQual instead.
The postgres_fdw bits would be my oversight. :-( > +1. root->hasHavingQual is set before we do any expression > preprocessing. It should be the right one to check with. +1 HEAD only seems reasonable. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
