Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins
Date: 2009-02-11 16:44:33
Message-ID: 36e682920902110844t1780d912q9791a529e05f6b4e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:

> This is a very big deal, as you are exposing every US PostgreSQL
> contributor to triple damages for "knowing infringement." Are you
> saying you're going to pay all that out of your own pocket? Are you
> making a legal commitment, say, with a few tens of million dollars in
> escrow to back it?

Per IRC, this discussion will (and likely should) be taken elsewhere.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matteo Beccati 2009-02-11 16:47:48 Re: DISCARD ALL failing to acquire locks on pg_listen
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-02-11 16:43:13 Re: A deprecation policy