Re: updated join removal patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> You're the committer; I'm not. But I completely disagree. There
>>> isn't any reason at all to duplicate this logic in two separate
>>> places, let alone three. I'd actually be in favor of merging the
>>> existing two cases even if we weren't adding join removal.
>>
>> No, I still think this was a bad idea. There are *parts* of those
>> tests that are similar, but combining them all into one function is
>> just a recipe for bugs.

> Having read your commit, it makes more sense to me. The fact that
> we're now looking at innerrel->baserestrictinfo also is a pretty
> powerful argument for your way.

Looking at it some more, I think that there is some value in factoring
out the tests to see if the clause has the right variable membership,
so I did that.

regards, tom lane