"=?gb18030?B?emVuZ21hbg==?=" <zeng...@halodbtech.com> writes:
> Thanks for your guidance, you are right, I looked at your patch
> and combined it with the example to generate a new patch,
> which is really better.
I pushed the code fix, but I can't really convince myself that the
test case is worth the cycles it'd eat forevermore. If we had
a way to reach the situation where there's setops but not any of
the other clauses in a leaf query, perhaps that would be worth
checking ... but we don't. It's just belt-and-suspenders-too
programming.
regards, tom lane
