Satheesh Bandaram wrote: > Thanks for catching the regression and resolving it so quickly. Is there > anything you cann't do? :-)
Hey, my bit was the easy bit, spot the typo in the patch given a simple reproducible case. Had I had to actually fix the problem like you did, it would have been a different story. :-) > I thought the reason for having TRUE constant node was because of need > to have the predicate in CNF form... AndNode is always at the top, which > assists (or simplifies) logic in the optimizer. I am still not done with > changes in 10.1 branch. I will add a comment for the need to have > constant node. Most likely true, actually I did mess up here by asking why there was a '= TRUE' construct, when the real construct in the original patch was 'col = value AND TRUE'. If I had looked more carefully I hope the '=' would have jumped out at me. Many eyes etc. Dan.
