Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> writes:
> I would like to ask if this alternative fix (attached) would also solve the
> problem or not.
If I'm reading the patch correctly, that fixes it by failing to drop
unused subplans at all --- the second loop you have has no external
effect.
We could, in fact, not bother with removing the no-longer-referenced
subplans, and it probably wouldn't be all that awful. But the intent
of the original patch was to save the executor startup time for such
subplans, so I wanted to preserve that goal if I could. The committed
patch seems small enough and cheap enough to be worthwhile.
regards, tom lane
