On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > If inh_root_relid meant that, it would no longer be useful to
> > examine_variable. In examine_variable, we need to map a child table's
> > relid to the relid of its root parent table. If the root parent
> > itself is under a UNION ALL subquery parent, then inh_root_relid of
> > all relations in that ancestry chain would point to the UNION ALL
> > subquery parent, which is not what examine_variable would want to use,
> > because it's really looking for the root "table".
>
> Hm, I see. Still, the definition seems quite ad-hoc and of uncertain
> usefulness to any other use-case. Given that checking permissions for
> access to an expression index's stats is a pretty uncommon thing to
> be doing, I don't really want to let it drive the definition of a
> new RelOptInfo field.
>
> The other reason that I'm on the warpath against this field is that
> it makes the patch un-back-patchable, and I'd like to be able to fix
> this problem in the back branches.
Both arguments make sense.
> Given the existence of the append_rel_array array, it's not really
> difficult or expensive to use that to chain up to the root parent,
> as in the attached simplified patch. We could only use this back
> to v11 where append_rel_array was added, but that's still a lot
> better than no back-patched fix at all.
I agree.
> I've not studied the test case too closely yet, other than to verify
> that it does fail without the code fix :-). Other than that, though,
> I think this patch is committable for v11 through HEAD.
Thanks for committing.
Regards,
Amit
