>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> I'm inclined to think that the best solution is to have Tom> process_equivalence just reject any clauses that have equal() Tom> left and right sides, ie, throw them back to be processed as Tom> ordinary non-equivalence clauses. >> Hmm. Is it ever possible for mergejoinable operators to be >> non-strict? Does that matter? Tom> I'm not sure. ISTR that nodeMergejoin makes some effort to Tom> support such operators, but the btree code doesn't really. In Tom> any case, it doesn't matter. Leaving the clause out of the Tom> equivalence machinery is certainly safe; at worst we'll end up Tom> with a redundant test or two in the final plan. Yeah, and clearly leaving in that kind of redundant test is no big deal. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
