Re: updated join removal patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Mmm, I like that. Putting that bunch of hairy logic in a subroutine
>>> instead of repeating it in several places definitely seems better. I
>>> don't really like the name "clause_matches_join", though.

>> It was the first thing that came to mind ... got a better idea?

> clause_has_well_defined_sides()?

Nah ... they're "well defined" in any case, they might just not be what
we need for the current join. As an example,

(a.f1 + b.f2) = c.f3

would be usable if joining {A B} to {C}, but not when joining
{A} to {B C}.

regards, tom lane