-$PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/README,v 1.51 2009/09/17 20:49:28 tgl Exp $
+$PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/README,v 1.52 2009/09/29 01:20:34 tgl Exp $
Optimizer
=========
get into EquivalenceClasses otherwise. Aggregates are disallowed in WHERE
altogether, so will never be found in a mergejoinable clause.) This is just
a convenience to maintain a uniform PathKey representation: such an
-EquivalenceClass will never be merged with any other.
+EquivalenceClass will never be merged with any other. Note in particular
+that a single-item EquivalenceClass {a.x} is *not* meant to imply an
+assertion that a.x = a.x; the practical effect of this is that a.x could
+be NULL.
An EquivalenceClass also contains a list of btree opfamily OIDs, which
determines what the equalities it represents actually "mean". All the
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
* IDENTIFICATION
- * $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c,v 1.20 2009/09/12 00:04:58 tgl Exp $
+ * $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c,v 1.21 2009/09/29 01:20:34 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
item1_relids = restrictinfo->left_relids;
item2_relids = restrictinfo->right_relids;
+ /*
+ * Reject clauses of the form X=X. These are not as redundant as they
+ * might seem at first glance: assuming the operator is strict, this is
+ * really an expensive way to write X IS NOT NULL. So we must not risk
+ * just losing the clause, which would be possible if there is already
+ * a single-element EquivalenceClass containing X. The case is not
+ * common enough to be worth contorting the EC machinery for, so just
+ * reject the clause and let it be processed as a normal restriction
+ * clause.
+ */
+ if (equal(item1, item2))
+ return false; /* X=X is not a useful equivalence */
+
/*
* If below outer join, check for strictness, else reject.
*/
*
* 4. We find neither. Make a new, two-entry EC.
*
- * Note: since all ECs are built through this process, it's impossible
- * that we'd match an item in more than one existing EC. It is possible
- * to match more than once within an EC, if someone fed us something silly
- * like "WHERE X=X". (However, we can't simply discard such clauses,
- * since they should fail when X is null; so we will build a 2-member EC
- * to ensure the correct restriction clause gets generated. Hence there
- * is no shortcut here for item1 and item2 equal.)
+ * Note: since all ECs are built through this process or the similar
+ * search in get_eclass_for_sort_expr(), it's impossible that we'd match
+ * an item in more than one existing nonvolatile EC. So it's okay to stop
+ * at the first match.
*/
ec1 = ec2 = NULL;
em1 = em2 = NULL;
select sillysrf(-1) order by 1;
drop function sillysrf(int);
+
+-- X = X isn't a no-op, it's effectively X IS NOT NULL assuming = is strict
+-- (see bug #5084)
+select * from (values (2),(null),(1)) v(k) where k = k order by k;
+select * from (values (2),(null),(1)) v(k) where k = k;