Em qua., 15 de set. de 2021 às 12:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> writes: > I would like to ask if this alternative fix (attached) would also solve the > problem or not.
If I'm reading the patch correctly, that fixes it by failing to drop unused subplans at all --- the second loop you have has no external effect.
We could, in fact, not bother with removing the no-longer-referenced subplans, and it probably wouldn't be all that awful. But the intent of the original patch was to save the executor startup time for such subplans, so I wanted to preserve that goal if I could. The committed patch seems small enough and cheap enough to be worthwhile.
