From 93ec0c90cde7e0188c96bca9a8ba815b58c00d24 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:36:55 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Fix incorrect strictness test for ArrayCoerceExpr expressions. The recursion in contain_nonstrict_functions_walker() was done wrong, causing the strictness check to be bypassed for a parse node that is the immediate input of an ArrayCoerceExpr node. This could allow, for example, incorrect decisions about whether a strict SQL function can be inlined. I didn't add a regression test, because (a) the bug is so narrow and (b) I couldn't think of a test case that wasn't dependent on a large number of other behaviors, to the point where it would likely soon rot to the point of not testing what it was intended to. I broke this in commit c12d570fa, so back-patch to v11. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/27571.1550617881@sss.pgh.pa.us --- src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c b/src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c index df56569c502..1daafe1ea72 100644 --- a/src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c @@ -1409,9 +1409,8 @@ contain_nonstrict_functions_walker(Node *node, void *context) * the per-element expression is; so we should ignore elemexpr and * recurse only into the arg. */ - return expression_tree_walker((Node *) ((ArrayCoerceExpr *) node)->arg, - contain_nonstrict_functions_walker, - context); + return contain_nonstrict_functions_walker((Node *) ((ArrayCoerceExpr *) node)->arg, + context); } if (IsA(node, CaseExpr)) return true;