Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Is there a guard in here against joining a parameterized path to an
> intermediate relation when no SJ is involved? In other words, if
> we're joining a parameterized path on A to a path on B, then either
> the join to B should satisfy at least part of the parameterization
> needed by A, or there should be a special join with A and B on one
> side and a relation that satisfies at least part of the
> parameterization of A on the other.
There is no such guard. We could probably add one with not an
outrageous amount of expense, but I'm not clear on why you think it's
appropriate to limit the join ordering that way?
regards, tom lane