On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> wrote: > >> >> >>> Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly >>> enormous query as is generated by the broken forms of this logic to turn >>> out happily. I'd rather fix Slony (as done in the above patch). >>> >> >> Yes, by all means, fix the application, but that doesn't preclude the >> argument that the database should be a bit more smarter and efficient, >> especially if it is easy to do. > > > Agreed, it seems like a fine idea to have the database support such > queries, as this eases coping with applications that might be more > difficult to get fixed. > Seeing no more objections to it, I am going to add this patch to the commitfest. Attached is updated patch against latest master; it's the same as the previous version, except that that the patch now includes a fix for the failing test case as well. Best regards, -- Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/ EnterpriseDB Inc.
non_recursive_and_or_transformation_v3.patch
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
