On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:12:56PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jonah H. Harris > <jonah.har...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > >> I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues): > >> > Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs > >> > in the planner's rules about when semi/antijoins can commute > >> > with other joins; > >> > >> After doing some math I've concluded this is in fact the case. > >> Anyone want to check my work? > > > > > > FWIW, the logic looks correct to me. > > Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to > it :( > > http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join
As has been discussed here many, many times, the only kind of person who should be doing a patent search is a company's IP attorney, which you are not, and even if you were, under no circumstances would such a person paste that link in a public forum. Should we have a kick-off policy for this kind of misbehavior? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
