Re: <> join selectivity estimate question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: <> join selectivity estimate question
Date: 2017-09-06 12:58:13
Message-ID: 10251.1504702693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Why isn't this an open item for PG10?

Why should it be? This behavior has existed for a long time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-09-06 13:05:21 Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-06 12:56:20 Re: Fix performance of generic atomics