Re: Allowing join removals for more join types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Allowing join removals for more join types
Date: 2014-07-05 15:20:45
Message-ID: 2817.1404573645@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Attached is a delta patch between version 1.2 and 1.3, and also a
> completely updated patch.

Just to note that I've started looking at this, and I've detected a rather
significant omission: there's no check that the join operator has anything
to do with the subquery's grouping operator. I think we need to verify
that they are members of the same opclass, as
relation_has_unique_index_for does.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2014-07-05 16:11:29 Re: unused local variable
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-05 14:55:54 Re: unused local variable