Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Mmm, I like that. Putting that bunch of hairy logic in a subroutine >>> instead of repeating it in several places definitely seems better. I >>> don't really like the name "clause_matches_join", though.
>> It was the first thing that came to mind ... got a better idea? > clause_has_well_defined_sides()? Nah ... they're "well defined" in any case, they might just not be what we need for the current join. As an example, (a.f1 + b.f2) = c.f3 would be usable if joining {A B} to {C}, but not when joining {A} to {B C}. 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