In these cases a qual can get marked with the removable rel in its
required_relids, but this is just to schedule its evaluation correctly, not
because it really depends on the rel. We were assuming that, in effect,
we could throw away *all* quals so marked, which is nonsense. Tighten up
the logic to be a little more paranoid about which quals belong to the
outer join being considered for removal, and arrange for all quals that
don't belong to be updated so they will still get evaluated correctly.
Also fix another problem that happened to be exposed by this test case,
which was that make_join_rel() was failing to notice some cases where
a constant-false qual could be used to prove a join relation empty. If it's
a pushed-down constant false, then the relation is empty even if it's an
outer join, because the qual applies after the outer join expansion.
Per report from Nathan Grange. Back-patch into 9.0.
representation of equivalence classes of variables. This is an extensive
rewrite, but it brings a number of benefits:
* planner no longer fails in the presence of "incomplete" operator families
that don't offer operators for every possible combination of datatypes.
* avoid generating and then discarding redundant equality clauses.
* remove bogus assumption that derived equalities always use operators
named "=".
* mergejoins can work with a variety of sort orders (e.g., descending) now,
instead of tying each mergejoinable operator to exactly one sort order.
* better recognition of redundant sort columns.
* can make use of equalities appearing underneath an outer join.
joinclause doesn't use any outer-side vars) requires a "bushy" plan to be
created. The normal heuristic to avoid joins with no joinclause has to be
overridden in that case. Problem is new in 8.2; before that we forced the
outer join order anyway. Per example from Teodor.
of a relation in a flat 'joininfo' list. The former arrangement grouped
the join clauses according to the set of unjoined relids used in each;
however, profiling on test cases involving lots of joins proves that
that data structure is a net loss. It takes more time to group the
join clauses together than is saved by avoiding duplicate tests later.
It doesn't help any that there are usually not more than one or two
clauses per group ...
a new PlannerInfo struct, which is passed around instead of the bare
Query in all the planning code. This commit is essentially just a
code-beautification exercise, but it does open the door to making
larger changes to the planner data structures without having to muck
with the widely-known Query struct.
Also performed an initial run through of upgrading our Copyright date to
extend to 2005 ... first run here was very simple ... change everything
where: grep 1996-2004 && the word 'Copyright' ... scanned through the
generated list with 'less' first, and after, to make sure that I only
picked up the right entries ...
of known-equal expressions includes any constant expressions (including
Params from outer queries), we actively suppress any 'var = var'
clauses that are or could be deduced from the set, generating only the
deducible 'var = const' clauses instead. The idea here is to push down
the restrictions implied by the equality set to base relations whenever
possible. Once we have applied the 'var = const' clauses, the 'var = var'
clauses are redundant, and should be suppressed both to save work at
execution and to avoid double-counting restrictivity.
There are two implementation techniques: the executor understands a new
JOIN_IN jointype, which emits at most one matching row per left-hand row,
or the result of the IN's sub-select can be fed through a DISTINCT filter
and then joined as an ordinary relation.
Along the way, some minor code cleanup in the optimizer; notably, break
out most of the jointree-rearrangement preprocessing in planner.c and
put it in a new file prep/prepjointree.c.
store all ordering information in pathkeys lists (which are now lists of
lists of PathKeyItem nodes, not just lists of lists of vars). This was
a big win --- the code is smaller and IMHO more understandable than it
was, even though it handles more cases. I believe the node changes will
not force an initdb for anyone; planner nodes don't show up in stored
rules.
