On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> AFAICT, [1] just demonstrates that nobody had thought about the scenario
> up to that point, not that the subsequently chosen solution was a good
> one.
But have a look at this:
http://postgr.es/m/561E12D4.7040403@lab.ntt.co.jp
That shows a case where, before
5fc4c26db5120bd90348b6ee3101fcddfdf54800, a query that required the
foreign table to do an EPQ recheck produced an unambiguously wrong
answer; the query stipulates that inttab.a = ft1.a but the row
returned lacks that property. I think this clearly shows that EPQ
rechecks are needed at least for FDW paths that are parameterized.
However, I guess that doesn't actually refute your point, which IIUC
is that maybe we don't need these checks for FDW join paths, because
we don't build parameterized paths for those yet. Now I think it would
still be a good idea to have a way of handling that case, because
somebody's likely going want to fix that /* XXX Consider parameterized
paths for the join relation */ eventually, but I guess for the
back-branches just setting epq_path = NULL instead of calling
GetExistingLocalJoinPath() might be the way to go... assuming that
your contention that this won't break anything is indeed correct.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company