On 4/8/25 08:32, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 9:54 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/25 09:50, Richard Guo wrote:
Consider the join to t3. It is a unique join, and not all of its
restriction clauses are parameterized. Despite this, the check still
passes.
At the same time I think term 'Incorrect' is not good unless you show an
example where data returned is not consistent to the expected.
I think this inequality check has worked in couple with the
get_equal_hashops.
Do you mean this check is designed to work in conjunction with the
clause_sides_match_join check in paraminfo_get_equal_hashops? I would
consider this a very poor design.
As I have written before, I am quite happy with the change you propose.
I just pointed out that term 'incorrect' usually means you may provide a
query which causes an error or inconsistent data which we can add to the
tests set. Current code may be described as 'kludge' lines - but I'm not
a native speaker, don't bikeshed here too much.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
