Re: ERROR: no relation entry for relid 6

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> Considering that clone clauses should always be outer-join clauses not
> filter clauses, I'm wondering if we can add an additional check for that
> in RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN, something like

>  #define RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(rinfo, joinrelids) \
> -   ((rinfo)->is_pushed_down || \
> -    !bms_is_subset((rinfo)->required_relids, joinrelids))
> +   (!((rinfo)->has_clone || ((rinfo)->is_clone)) && \
> +    ((rinfo)->is_pushed_down || \
> +     !bms_is_subset((rinfo)->required_relids, joinrelids)))

I don't like that one bit; it seems way too likely to introduce
bad side-effects elsewhere.

I think the real issue is that "is pushed down" has never been a
conceptually accurate way of thinking about what
remove_rel_from_query needs to do here.  Using RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN
happened to work up to now, but it's an abuse of that macro, and
changing the macro's behavior isn't the right way to fix it.

Having said that, I'm not sure what is a better way to think about it.
It seems like our data structure doesn't have a clear tie between
restrictinfos and their original join level, or at least, to the extent
that it did the "clone clause" mechanism has broken it.

I wonder if we could do something involving recording the
rinfo_serial numbers of all the clauses extracted from a particular
syntactic join level (we could keep this in a bitmapset attached
to each SpecialJoinInfo, perhaps) and then filtering the joinclauses
on the basis of serial numbers instead of required_relids.