Re: havingQual vs hasHavingQual buglets

Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:47 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:37 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I came across a couple of places in the planner that are checking
>>> for nonempty havingQual; but since these bits run after
>>> const-simplification of the HAVING clause, that produces the wrong
>>> answer for a constant-true HAVING clause (which'll be folded to
>>> empty).  Correct code is to check root->hasHavingQual instead.

> The postgres_fdw bits would be my oversight.  :-(

No worries --- I think the one in set_subquery_pathlist is probably
my fault :-(

> +1  HEAD only seems reasonable.

Pushed that way; thanks for looking.

            regards, tom lane