Re: Processing long AND/OR lists

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly
>>> enormous query as is generated by the broken forms of this logic to turn
>>> out happily. I'd rather fix Slony (as done in the above patch).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, by all means, fix the application, but that doesn't preclude the
>> argument that the database should be a bit more smarter and efficient,
>> especially if it is easy to do.
>
>
> Agreed, it seems like a fine idea to have the database support such
> queries, as this eases coping with applications that might be more
> difficult to get fixed.
>

Seeing no more objections to it, I am going to add this patch to the
commitfest. Attached is updated patch against latest master; it's the same
as the previous version, except that that the patch now includes a fix for
the failing test case as well.

Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh

http://gurjeet.singh.im/

EnterpriseDB Inc.