Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> There is some stuff in the literature about how to make transformations
>> of the last kind, but it requires additional executor smarts to do strange
>> sorts of "generalized outer join" operations.
> Would these "generalized outer join" operations be general enough to handle IN
> semantics? Or other subqueries?
No, AFAICT it's just a weird way of defining a join operation.
I did find some papers that talked about ways to push joins up and down
past aggregations and GROUP BY, but that's a problem for another day.
regards, tom lane