On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> joinremoval.c ? > >> Maybe, except as I mentioned in the email linked upthread, my plan for >> implementing inner join removal would also include allowing join >> reordering in cases where we currently don't. So I don't want to >> sandbox it too tightly as join removal, per se, though that's >> certainly what we have on the table ATM. It's more like advanced >> open-heart join-tree surgery - like prepjointree, but much later in >> the process. > > Hm. At this point we're not really working with a join *tree* in any > case --- the data structure we're mostly concerned with is the list of > SpecialJoinInfo structs, and what we're trying to do is weaken the > constraints described by that list. So I'd rather stay away from "tree" > terminology. > > planjoins.c would fit with other names in the plan/ directory but it > seems like a misnomer because we're not really "planning" any joins > at this stage. > > adjustjoins.c? loosenjoins.c? weakenjoins.c?
How about analyzejoins.c? Loosen and weaken don't seem like quite the right idea; adjust is a little generic and perhaps overused, but not bad. If you don't like analyzejoins then go with adjustjoins. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
