On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 11:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Oh, scratch that, I see you mean this is an additional way to do it
> not the only way to do it. But I'm confused why it works for
> t1.two+1 AS c1
> but not
> t1.two+t2.two AS c1
> Those ought to look pretty much the same for this purpose.
The bms_overlap(pull_varnos(rcon->root, newnode), rcon->relids) test
is false with t1.two+1. Looks like there needs to be a Var from t2
for the bms_overlap to be true
David