David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 04:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 0001's change in is_dummy_rel() seems like a complete hack, especially
>> since you didn't bother to change the adjacent comment. Why is that
>> necessary?
> build_setop_child_paths() wraps the child inputs in SubqueryScanPaths,
> so we need to see through those.
Ah.
> An alternative way would be to propagate those during build_setop_child_paths()
That answer works for me. I was expecting you to just document the
need for the extra check in is_dummy_rel ;-) ... but this way is
perhaps better.
regards, tom lane
