"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or we could apply Peter's patch more or less as-is, but I don't like > that. I don't think it solves the stated problem: if you know that CASE > branches 3 and 5 don't match, that still doesn't help you in a monster > query with lots of CASEs. I think we can and must do better.
Do we have something more helpful than "branches 3 and 5"? Perhaps printing the actual transformed expressions? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
