David Rowley writes:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That patch is entirely bogus. What you should be asking is why
>> get_loop_count is being applied to a relation that's supposedly been
>> removed from the query.
> hmm ok. After further investigation it seems that this i
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > In order to get my patch working with an Assert enabled build I've had to
> > apply the attached patch.
>
> That patch is entirely bogus. What you should be asking is why
> get_loop_count is being applied to a relation
David Rowley writes:
> In order to get my patch working with an Assert enabled build I've had to
> apply the attached patch.
That patch is entirely bogus. What you should be asking is why
get_loop_count is being applied to a relation that's supposedly been
removed from the query. It should only
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:11 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> In order to get my patch working with an Assert enabled build I've had to
> apply the attached patch.
>
Actually I meant to attach this patch instead.
Regards
David Rowley
get_loop_count_ignore_dead_rels_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
I've just been hacking away a bit more at the WIP patch that I posted a
while back which allows join removals for SEMI and ANTI joins that could be
proved useless due to the existence of a foreign key which matched the join
condition (here
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caaphdvq0nai8ceqtnndqg
