Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> With the fix I was just about to apply, all four cases give the first
>> set of results. This clearly satisfies the principle of least
>> astonishment, at least more nearly than what we have; but it equally
>> clearly is *not* going to restore 8.4 to work just like 8.3.
> Right, 8.3 had the same underlying problem, 8.4 just makes it more
> visible as it's better at flattening subqueries.
What is interesting is that the CASE in the OP's original submission
is apparently only there to dodge the visible-since-8.0 version of
the problem; at least I can't see that it does anything else useful.
The complaint apparently is not so much that 8.3 was right, as that
the workaround for its bug stopped working ...
>> ... So I'm leaning to patching
>> 8.4 and leaving the older branches alone.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> Seems reasonable.
Will apply fix shortly --- I thought of one minor improvement to
make (the code as it stands is generating redundant PlaceHolderVars).
regards, tom lane
