Index: src/select.c
==================================================================
--- src/select.c
+++ src/select.c
@@ -5613,11 +5613,13 @@
 ** within the HAVING expression with a constant "1".
 */
 static int havingToWhereExprCb(Walker *pWalker, Expr *pExpr){
   if( pExpr->op!=TK_AND ){
     Select *pS = pWalker->u.pSelect;
-    if( sqlite3ExprIsConstantOrGroupBy(pWalker->pParse, pExpr, pS->pGroupBy) ){
+    if( sqlite3ExprIsConstantOrGroupBy(pWalker->pParse, pExpr, pS->pGroupBy) 
+     && ExprAlwaysFalse(pExpr)==0
+    ){
       sqlite3 *db = pWalker->pParse->db;
       Expr *pNew = sqlite3Expr(db, TK_INTEGER, "1");
       if( pNew ){
         Expr *pWhere = pS->pWhere;
         SWAP(Expr, *pNew, *pExpr);

Index: test/having.test
==================================================================
--- test/having.test
+++ test/having.test
@@ -63,12 +63,12 @@
     "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 WHERE a=2 GROUP BY a HAVING sum(b)>5"
 
   3 "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary HAVING a=2"
     "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 WHERE a=2 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary"
 
-  5 "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary HAVING 0"
-    "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 WHERE 0 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary"
+  5 "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary HAVING 1"
+    "SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t1 WHERE 1 GROUP BY a COLLATE binary"
 
   6 "SELECT count(*) FROM t1,t2 WHERE a=c GROUP BY b, d HAVING b=d"
     "SELECT count(*) FROM t1,t2 WHERE a=c AND b=d GROUP BY b, d"
 
   7 {
@@ -151,8 +151,28 @@
 #
 set ::nondeter_ret 0
 do_execsql_test 4.3 {
   SELECT a, sum(b) FROM t3 WHERE nondeter(a) GROUP BY a
 } {1 4 2 2}
+
+#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+reset_db
+do_execsql_test 5.0 {
+  CREATE TABLE t1(a, b);
+  CREATE TABLE t2(x, y);
+  INSERT INTO t1 VALUES('a', 'b');
+}
+
+# The WHERE clause (a=2), uses an aggregate column from the outer query.
+# If the HAVING term (0) is moved into the WHERE clause in this case,
+# SQLite would at one point optimize (a=2 AND 0) to simply (0). Which
+# is logically correct, but happened to cause problems in aggregate
+# processing for the outer query. This test case verifies that those 
+# problems are no longer present.
+do_execsql_test 5.1 {
+  SELECT min(b), (
+    SELECT x FROM t2 WHERE a=2 GROUP BY y HAVING 0
+  ) FROM t1;
+} {b {}}
 
 
 finish_test