"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.har...@gmail.com> writes: > Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it :( > http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join
I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this? Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of the definition of NOT IN, and few of the other claims seem exactly non-obvious either. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers