Re: updated join removal patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: updated join removal patch
Date: 2009-09-18 20:26:15
Message-ID: 603c8f070909181326g31b74c6ekbcfdac4ee5e66606@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The clauses are well-defined, but they don't have well-defined sides.
>> I see now what you're going for with clause_matches_join, but
>> "matches" is a pretty broad term, IMO.
>
> clause_sides_match_join?

Yes, that's perfect.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2009-09-18 20:27:16 Re: happy birthday Tom Lane ...
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-09-18 20:22:09 Re: numeric_to_number() function skipping some digits