On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 07:23:19PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > On 17 Jun 2018, at 14:47, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> - if (bms_num_members(clauses_attnums) < 2) >> + if (bms_membership(clauses_attnums) != BMS_MULTIPLE) >> For this one, the comment above directly mentions that at least two >> attnums need to be present, so it seems to me that the current coding is >> easier to understand and intentional... So I would be incline to not >> change it. > > I don’t have any strong feelings either way, and will leave that call to the > committer who picks this up. I agree that the current coding is easy to > understand but I don’t see this being much harder.
I have looked at that again, and pushed the portion for postgres_fdw as the intention is clear, while leaving out the part from the statistics per the comment close by. Thanks! -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
