[ Don't have time to read the v4 patch right now, but a couple
of quick responses: ]
Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> writes:
> On 9/23/25 21:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be slightly inclined to put the GUC test there, too:
>>
>> + if (enable_starjoin_join_search)
>> + joinlist = starjoin_adjust_joins(root, joinlist);
> I'm not sure I like this very mcuh. No other call in query_planner()
> does it like that. Most don't have such GUC, but at least
> remove_useless_self_joins does, and it still doesn't check it here.
Fair enough, it was just a suggestion.
> When thinking about this, I realized the has_join_restriction() is only
> ever used in join_search_one_level(), i.e. when dealing with each small
> join order problem. Doesn't this mean the deconstructed jointree must
> already consider the restrictions in some way? I don't see any explicit
> mentions of such join order restrictions in deconstruct_recurse. It must
> not violate any ordering restrictions by splitting the joins in a
> "wrong" way, right? If I set join_collapse_limit=1 it still needs to
> satisfy all the rules.
Performing outer joins in syntactic order is always OK by definition,
and setting join_collapse_limit to 1 just forces that to happen.
So I guess you could say that the original jointree "considers the
restrictions", and it's only after we flatten an outer join's two
sides into a joinlist (along with other rels) that we have to worry.
Or is that not what you meant?
regards, tom lane
