On 2014-03-28 16:45:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-03-28 16:41:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any objection to separating out the have_mappings bit? It wasn't terribly > >> appropriate before, but it seems really out of place in this formulation. > > > The patch I sent removed the have_mapping thing entirely? Do you mean it > > should be there, but as a separate query? > > Oh, so it did. Well, do you think we need a query checking that? > I hadn't questioned the need to do so, but if you feel it's unnecessary > I'm certainly willing to pull it.
I don't think it's necessary. As far as I understand LATERAL, a join to a function returning NULL will still return the row. So, the test now would only test whether there are rows in pg_class which seems a bit pointless. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
