On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > In match_eclasses_to_foreign_key_col(), there is this: > > if (em->em_is_child) > continue; /* ignore children here */ > > ISTM, it might as well be: > > Assert(!em->em_is_child); /* no children yet */ > > That's because, I think it's still too early in query_planner() to be > expecting any child EC members.
I'm not sure there's really any benefit to this change. In the future, somebody might want to use the function from someplace later on in the planner. If the logic as-written would work correctly in that case now, I can't see why we should turn it into an assertion failure instead. This isn't really costing us anything, is it? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
