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 19:46:06 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909181246i235f9a46s361c06fa13f85d51@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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}.
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.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-18 19:52:15 | Re: updated join removal patch |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-18 19:44:34 | Re: FSM search modes |