| 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: | 2009-09-16 03:00:27 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909152000h49187b90va14fb6f90efc2f3e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * I'm not sure about this, because surely you would have tested it,
>>> but isn't it looking at the wrong side of the join clauses? I thought
>>> the idea is to prove the nullable (inner) side of the join unique.
>>
>> Grr. I think it's more broken than that. Wow, this is really embarassing.
>
> Well, you're definitely right that it's looking at the wrong side of
> the join clauses. Still trying to figure out if there is another bug,
> too.
It looks to me like relation_is_distinct_for() is also horribly broken
in my previous version. I think the attached is how it is supposed to
work.
...Robert
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| join_removal.2009-09-15.fixes | application/octet-stream | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2009-09-16 03:04:54 | Re: Bulk Inserts |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-09-16 02:37:20 | Re: Streaming Replication patch for CommitFest 2009-09 |