"Jonah H. Harris" <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
