Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> OK. I was trying to be noninvasive, but this does look more sensible. >> I think this might read better if we inverted the test (so that >> the outer-join-joinclause-must-be-pushable case would come first).
> Ok. In fact, thinking more about it, we should probably test > JOIN_INNER explicitly instead of !IS_OUTER_JOIN() since SEMI_JOINS are > not considered as outer joins and I am not sure how would we be > treating the quals for those. No, that's correct as-is --- or at least, if it's not correct, there are a bunch of other places that are also not correct. Thinking about this further, though, it seems like a more straightforward solution to the original problem is to not store quals in a Plan's fdw_private list in the first place. Putting them there is at best useless overhead that the finished plan will have to drag around; and it's not terribly hard to imagine future changes that would make having never-processed-by-setrefs.c qual trees in a plan be broken in other ways. Can't we use a field in the rel's PgFdwRelationInfo to carry the remote_exprs forward from postgresGetForeignPlan to postgresPlanDirectModify? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers