Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Isn't it something that takes only a few hours to implement. We can't
> keep telling people to us EXISTS, especially because most SQL people
> think correlated queries are slower that non-correlated ones. Can we
> just on-the-fly rewrite the query to use exists?
I was just about to suggest exactly that. The "IN (subselect)"
notation seems to be a lot more intuitive --- at least, people
keep coming up with it --- so why not rewrite it to the EXISTS
form, if we can handle that more efficiently?
regards, tom lane