MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19435-3cc1a87f291129f1@postgresql.org> <CAHGQGwEEHFnH8DsZbwxdZeiHozm2LCRTLSgL8Qn=5MoN4450ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsDQhDqvqi+-UxvyYRP72ASkdWzCn43e2Hj6WsY15opvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHewXNmU3E0oXLgvoOtXw7kfTiAZsKu8La_hQ=pyScgxvP45iw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHewXN=LjuWz3PcyhjdbJAyo+Zs9MisPDRYnSZBUy4PMeKi+zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPj1kTTQvmV3H3HMf5P3um8ybxoH3DaTPm+XgdYAur1Q4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHewXNndByMu3S+_h4LLDkXA5qrO1s=s-CE8HqUtc9vTA9yrjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdv6gzSTXHJxYSgB8sULadXM4wvhgoQODaOxYCJfagKNPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHewXN=7kDJjUcgEm+6qhaKOXuqzvhRqAAKdafNCRgn0yH7BGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHewXNm5OOREJ8wZ1cLJdQz7O1aQ0E1RBB55S6O138K8vBdc9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfducqLJ=o3LkoPKGfZJVQuuei+P=2oUF6hX6rzHTZSxoyA@mail.gmail.com> <a78fe5d4-e6b8-4b3c-9cfd-135edbb68e4c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a78fe5d4-e6b8-4b3c-9cfd-135edbb68e4c@gmail.com>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 14:21:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpHfduTWFCHaK8U7bDfYid5pjVA=FHG1b0nTEMFqFKHebGJxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #19435: Error: "No relation entry for relid 2" Triggered by
 Complex Join with Self-Referencing Tables
To: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Cc: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>, 
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, ammmkilo@163.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduTWFCHaK8U7bDfYid5pjVA%3DFHG1b0nTEMFqFKHebGJxQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On 18/3/26 09:40, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > What about being more generic and call ChangeVarNodes_walker() for the
> > node in ChangeVarNodesWalkExpression()?  It also works with out case
> > and avoids code duplication.
> I=E2=80=99ve reached the same conclusion. We lost a possible case when th=
e
> RestrictInfo=E2=86=92clause contains a bare Var that isn=E2=80=99t pushed=
 into either
> the left or right subtree.
> I think we can fix this by replacing the expression walker with
> ChangeVarNodes_walker().

I see.  This is even better.

> What is the reason for the second change? Tender, can you show us how to
> reproduce the issue so we can support your update to
> restrict_infos_logically_equal? If we include it, we should add a test.

I think Tender already shown this in [1].  The same qual is present
twice in the plan.

Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHewXN%3D7kDJjUcgEm%2B6qhaKOXuqzv=
hRqAAKdafNCRgn0yH7BGg%40mail.gmail.com

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase