Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hmmm... Well, I'll take a look at it, but I'll probably just leave it > > > be -- since the optimization might actually return invalid results, it > > > doesn't seem like a very valuable thing to have, IMHO. > > > > Yeah, I never cared for the fact that it altered the semantics of the > > query, even if only subtly. But I'm hesitant to rip out something that > > someone went to the trouble of writing and contributing ... > > If it does nothing, we certainly should remove it from GUC so people > don't see a meaningless option. We can then keep it in CVS to see if we > want it later.
Here is the email from May 28 discussing the removal of GUC. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
