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> <CAPpHfduTWFCHaK8U7bDfYid5pjVA=FHG1b0nTEMFqFKHebGJxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a498f5b8-2f17-4ee0-b021-63ff9829b45b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a498f5b8-2f17-4ee0-b021-63ff9829b45b@gmail.com>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:38:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpHfdvqV-HLjZHDsPTLXUbe5TEnfxiKT+L084jhWMmFG2adfg@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/CAPpHfdvqV-HLjZHDsPTLXUbe5TEnfxiKT%2BL084jhWMmFG2adfg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 3:31=E2=80=AFPM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> On 18/3/26 13:21, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> Got it. I suggest making this a separate commit to keep the history
> clear. Let me share a draft with a test case for the bug fix first.

Yes, I was also thinking about splitting this into two distinct
commit.  The patch you've attached looks good for me.  I'm going to
push and backpatch it if no objections.  And let's continue the
investigation on restrict_infos_logically_equal().

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase