On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.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
join_removal.2009-09-15.fixes
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
