Re: [HACKERS] Problem with CVS HEAD's handling of mergejoins

2008-01-09 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: A perhaps less invasive idea is to discard any proposed mergeclauses that are redundant in this sense. This would still require some reshuffling of responsibility between select_mergejoin_clauses and the code in pathkeys.c, since right now select_mergejoin_clauses takes no account

[HACKERS] Problem with CVS HEAD's handling of mergejoins

2008-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
So I adjusted the patch I was working on as suggested here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00251.php and things started blowing up all over the place --- Assert failures, too few pathkeys for mergeclauses errors, etc :-( On investigation, the problem seems to be a bit of

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with CVS HEAD's handling of mergejoins

2008-01-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: I think I can fix this in a day or so, but I now definitely feel that we'll need an RC2 :-( Understood. :-| -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard