David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 14:33, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe better:
>>
>> Other possibilities will be excluded for lack of join clauses.
>> (In reality, use of EquivalenceClasses would allow us to
>> deduce additional join clauses that allow more join
>> combinations, but here we ignore that to preserve the
>> simplicity of this example.)
> Looks good to me.
OK, done. I moved the text after noticing that it really applies
to both of the examples here.
regards, tom lane
