Re: Removing unneeded self joins

Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>

From: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>, Michał Kłeczek <michal@kleczek.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-12-29T09:58:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Remove GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from enable_self_join_elimination

  2. Put enable_self_join_elimination into postgresql.conf.sample

  3. Get rid of ojrelid local variable in remove_rel_from_query()

  4. Implement Self-Join Elimination

  5. Revert: Remove useless self-joins

  6. Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries

  7. Replace relids in lateral subquery parse tree during SJE

  8. Forbid SJE with result relation

  9. Fix misuse of RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache by SJE

  10. Replace the relid in some missing fields during SJE

  11. Revert 56-bit relfilenode change and follow-up commits.

  12. Stabilize timetz test across DST transitions.

  13. Speed up finding EquivalenceClasses for a given set of rels

  14. Fix mark-and-restore-skipping test case to not be a self-join.

Attachments

On 29/12/2023 12:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> 23.10.2023 14:29, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> Fixed all of the above. Thank you for catching this!
> 
> I've discovered that starting from d3d55ce57 the following query:
> CREATE TABLE t(a int PRIMARY KEY);
> 
> WITH tt AS (SELECT * FROM t)
> UPDATE t SET a = tt.a + 1 FROM tt
> WHERE tt.a = t.a RETURNING t.a;
> 
> triggers an error "variable not found in subplan target lists".
> (Commits 8a8ed916f and b5fb6736e don't fix this, unfortunately.)

Thanks for the report!
The problem is with the resultRelation field. We forget to replace the 
relid here.
Could you check your issue with the patch in the attachment? Does it 
resolve this case?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional